Religious faith is belief without evidence as most christians will agree upon as the definition and grounds for their worship as others would demonstrate arrogance in their delusion by claiming they KNOW. Faith can also be defined as TRUST, in the realistic sense, which would be, well, outside the realm of mystical insanity that is religion.
As for beliefs, well, everything to them is in terms of beliefs-belief in science, technology, evolution etc. fuckin 500 limit...
May be you should be the one to debate Lennox since you think you know better than Dawkins! When are you publishing your own book and invite Lennox to debate it. To my observation, Dawkins was sooo lost that I even wondered his competence in debating or even on whether he was the one that wrote the book itself. Seriously, that was the worst perfomance on the atheist side!
@jeannshi you meant to finish off by saying in your opinion. if dawkins lost an argument to every faith we would have a sky full of imaginary friends above us.so religions are basicaly the security blanket of the weak,insecure,non rationalists,self deceiving fools that fear what they do not understand. claiming that your gods got a bigger cock than the next is extremly stupid. but hey dont think when youve got a virtue like blind faith [wink]
I got to the 4 minute mark...and i was horrified at some of the stuff u said....u say at 3:04-3:09 that faith being blind is a given....which is totally not the definition of faith....but anyway, u then say that at 3:55 that faith isnt blind wen talkin bout ur wife???
I saw the debate and thought that both sides were treated fairly, I thought that Lennox was the one who was cut off several times, and was given only a min or so for his final remarks, and that Dawkins often times did reply to what Lennox said, when necessary which ate up time that caused the final point to not really be discussed. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate and thought both men did a fantastic job. I was sad when it was over because I wanted to hear more.
King Heathen, this is in response to your comment about the assumption that the universe needed to be created. It's clearly not the same argument. The Universe was indeed created from nothing according to the big bang theory, the means by which this was accomplished, be it God or Magic is irrelevant. It did not naturally evolve into being, it came from (Nothing). It fits the definition of Created perfectly.
@neomatrix031 Sorry, but no. The Big Bang says that the universe was formed out of an expansion of a singularity. The singularity is far from "nothing."
@KingHeathen Your right a singularity is far from nothing, however: Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. - Big-Bang-Theory . com
@neomatrix031 With all due respect to "All about Science"...they are dead wrong. Steven Hawking explains very clearly that we don't even have any way of knowing what was or wasn't there prior to the Big Bang. The concept that before it was "nothing" is NOT part of the theory. It's the same as creationists claiming that "the theory of evolution" says that life came from non-life. No, that would be abiogenesis. Evolution starts AFTER the first living thing. Big Bang with the singularity.
@KingHeathen Every modern version of the big bang theory I've ever read says the universe essentially came from nothing, I didn't mention the equally flawed theory of evolution or abiogenesis only that the word "created" is valid in accordance with the modern big bang theory it is however not appropriate when asking who created God as God couldn't be created cause then he couldn't be God. You see how one is possible and the other is not? I conclude It's not the same argument.
@neomatrix031 Could you name one of these "versions" you've seen? Stephen Hawking is very clear to state in "The Universe in a Nutshell" That we simply don't know nor have the ability to know what came before the Big Bang and even said in a recent interview that he would like to know "why there is something instead of nothing" which is a statement that he's said MANY times in response to the "something from nothing" mis-characterization of what the theory actually says.
@noimplant4me And which fallacy would that be? The one you just made up because you have no clue what a "fallacy" is? (Not to mention that your poor example of how you think the Theory of Evolution works is flawed in many many ways)
@noimplant4me God made himself. He tugged into his hand and used the sperm to fertilize himself. How? Read Luke 1.37 bible gateway.com "true story." He also made the earth in 6,000 years. Which is like believing the distance between San Francisco and New York is 8 yards. My pet monkey ate my pet frog and turned into a fronkey.
Hello KingHeathen, You talk about things being bad. On what basis do you say something is bad in and atheist universe? You spoke of people being logical. How do you account for logic in an atheist universe?
Basically you kept saying saying that Lennox's arguments were "unfounded." What is your support for your assertion that his arguments were unfounded?
"Bad" and "logical" don't change in "an atheist universe" vs a "theist universe."
Bad-when other alternatives would have produced a more beneficial outcome. (relative to "good")
Logical-something fits within our observable reality. (relative to "illogical")
If you like I can get you a link to an online dictionary....I figured that these were pretty well accepted concepts of "bad" and "logical." I'll try to use smaller words in the future for you.
A beneficial outcome may be different for each individual person or society. Hitler thought is was beneficial to the world to exterminate the Jewish people. On what basis do you say he was wrong in an atheist universe? I mean Hitler wanted to get rid of people he perceived to be weak. He wanted to create a master race.
I can say he was wrong because the Jewish people weren't a part of that decision, but were a definite part of the outcome. Hitler's desire to create what HE thought was a master race infringed on another group's existence. As the old saying goes...your rights end where someone else's begins. Find that in your Bible. You can't. Therefore, I turn the question around to you. How do you determine right from wrong about something if it isn't in your Bible?
Who says they have to be part of the decision? Again, Hitler thought he was helping the human race by deleting people he thought were poisoning the gene pool. Darwin also thought "inferior races" would be done away with so he did not see them as equal. That idea fits Darwinian theory not the Judeo Christian world view that teaches that people are created in God's image and therefore have equal intrinsic value.
The free world says that they have to be a part of the decision. See this is the part where your argument falls apart. Remove god, remove religion, remove all governmental influence and order will restore itself over time. We learn quickly that working together is more beneficial than working against each other and a group that wishes to eliminate one of our allies is an equal threat to ourselves.
The more civilized so-called CAUCASIAN RACES have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the LOWER RACES will have been eliminated by the HIGHER civilized RACES throughout the world. - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, pg. 318....
Being that you completely ignored my question and counterpoints and instead chose to quote mine something completely irrelevant to anything that I agree with....I'd say we are done here...unless you'd like to try again.
Dawkins isn't the best person to debate about the existence of god. He's pretty much a science guy. He would do fine arguing against creationism, but he doesn't seem to have a very strong philosophic basis for his arguments. I've never really heard Dawkins talk epistemology in any detail.
IMO, launching into the big bang and evolution as evidence for the non-existence of god is a pretty poor tactic if you want to address any of your opponent's points that probably don't come from science.
I agree, although he can realy good when he get's angry. Sadly that doesn't happen very often. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens could help him with that :)
Excellent review on the debate, your completely right on calling out Mr. Lennox little sneaky attack on Dawkins at the start of the debate! I felt disappointed on how the structure on this debate was played out , felt like it was purposely giving Mr. Lennox an advantage! Overall as a Catholic there was never a time in this debate where Mr. Lennox gave me a good enough reason not to turn my back on Christianity.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
"Psychotic people will be psychotic whether they're religious or not"
YES!!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!!!!!
You see? It doesn't matter if they have religion to use as a scapegoat, as long as they have one idea to use as a scapegoat, they'll use it. Religion is equal to all other avenues of justification in their minds.
Wait, the universe as a whole (and this has been philosophically demonstrated) is radically contingent, in other words, it needs something to create and sustain it. God is not radically contingent, he/she/it is self-sufficient. If you make God out to be not so, then you cause a chain of infinite regress. Baaaaaaad.
Im not asking you to prove atheism;atheism in itself is basically agnosticism since it only declines a certain reality but doesn't propose another.What I'm asking for proof for is naturalism, which actually proposes an entirely different explanation for reality,not simply debunking another.The entire premise of the unicorn is to defend atheism, not naturalism. Now, since I've answered your question, answer mine.What evidence has made you so confident in naturalism?(not just atheism)
reality itself. You could agure that one cant really trust there sencory input, as such my "mind" whatever it is, might be pluged into the matrex, or perhaps I'm just part of the Red Kings dream. I must hope that reality is indeed real, any test I use to prove it would itself be part of the reality that I assume is real, and therfor only able to matter if realtiy is real. But reality itself might not be real.
you're right about where I was going with it;I dont believe in unicorns because there is no evidence.Can I say for sure they don't exist?Of course not,because I don't know everything.The problem is that you're missing the point;with unicorns we don't believe because there is no evidence.I believe intelligent design because I see fossils, genetics,and the universe as evidence.You see them as evidence for naturalism.Its about how we translate the evidence that is there not whether or not it exists
Atheism requires that abiogenesis is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe.Such a scenario,if true,would make it likely that unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe.Therefore,an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance.The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically,since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.
Atheism requires nothing except the lack of belief in any deities.
And it's funny, you say that it logically fails....yet you said exactly what I expected you to say. Now, since you can't prove that unicorns don't exist...do you now BELIEVE in unicorns?
You keep coming back to that even after its been addressed.
Fine. I'll answer that if you can give an answer to this: I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. Do you have evidence that they do? (yes there is a point to the question)
OK...you STILL aren't answering the question...See, this is a NEW question. The first was what evidence do you have that unicorns don't exist? Your answer simply stated that we can't say for sure that they don't. So I asked it a new way asking "Do you now believe in them?" which is a YES or NO question and you respond with asking for evidence that they DO exist.
To translate: You don't believe in unicorns because there isn't any evidence. Well, I see no evidence for your god.
Your original question was what evidence do we have for atheism...which is the non-existence of any gods. (what evidence do we have for a-unicornism...which is the non-existence of unicorns)
I mean what question should I be asking? I'm not asking that I prove I'm not wrong- I'm asking that you prove you're right. My question is a perfectly reasonable one-you say science truly supports naturalism because that's where all the evidence points. Okay, fine. I would like to know what that evidence is. After all, according to you evidence is the only way to know anything, right? So i'm asking for the evidence that gives you so much confidence in your belief.
You mean the unicorn question? Fine. Your premise about the unicorn relies more on reason than scientific data, as it simply is impossible to prove that unicorns exist (not saying I believe in them)
I agree that there are plenty of aspects of religion that are flat out dangerous. And I also agree that bad people do bad things regardless of whether or not they're religious. But I think you're missing the point when Lennox pointed out the evils some atheists have done. The point isn't that atheism gives you permission to do evil- the point is that there is no one other than outselves to be held accountable to, so no one to prohibit any moral misbehavior. Do you disagree?
Overall this was an interesting debate. But I am curious about some of the comments you made. For instance, I've heard you mention several times in other vids that there is no evidence for God. Yet I have grown up my entire life on not just accepting my faith blindly, but looking for evidence and thinking it out, and have found sufficient reason to find it plausible. The question I would like to ask you (and again this is not biblebashing but honest inquiry), what evidence supports atheism?
That doesn't answer my question. I am not asking for any analogies or clever retorts. I'm not even asking you to prove God doesn't exist, which is a rediculous request. Just a few hard facts that undeniably point towards a naturalistic solution. This isn't a sarcastic or rhetorical question- i've simply heard over and over how science proves naturalism, yet no one has ever presented me with one of those facts. Justell me the evidence that is the source of your confidence in this belief.
of course this douchebag made lennox look bad cuz he's on the atheist side. what i must point out is that both men were AWESOME so there's no point bashing lennox if you're not going to bash dawkins as well, as dawkins made mistakes too.
kingheathen, to you who insults a man like Doctor Lennox, oxford professor; where's your Doctorate? you are the stupidest thing i've heard XD
"You don't know if I have a doctorate or not and/or what field of studies I would have such a claim...."
and you don't know that I've been secretly spying on you since you were born. i know everything you do, everything you know. and you sir, DO NOT have a doctorate.
Dawkins made excellent summary of the atheism at the end. It was on the one hand beautiful and on the other proving why enlighted atheism is superior to theism :)
No, but it does make both of you morons. Dawkins is not anybody's idol. Hell, a lot of atheists don't even like Dawkins. It's not like he's the bloody Pope of skepticism.
Dawkins wasn't destroyed anyhow. Nobody is destroyed until they perform as badly as Sarah Palin did at ANY of her debates and interviews. Both men are extremely intelligent and performed ably.
@zabriel13 I must say, I agree strongly with both of the Highest rated comments on this video! It is a great encouragement to me to see that members of the atheistic persuasion (Unlike myself) will in fact belittle Dawkin's at least in a minuscule amount. I think that this debate was an excellent show of human maturity and extremely advanced intellect ON BOTH SIDES of the argument. Dear Kingheathen: Had you actually researched this debate, or debating in general you would soon realize that not
@zabriel13 only did Dawkins agree to the terms and topics set up by fixed point, but he already knew the layout for the debate. You do realize that the topics covered in a debate are in no way a secret to the contestants right? Also I think it is very petty of you to make it appear that Dawkins was treated unfairly when Dawkins HIMSELF stated that where normal christian groups stumble at fail at being civil in fair debate and facing the issues fixed point succeeds in making the debates fair and
@Nucleartist Dawkins was very clear that his understanding was that they would get a chance to respond to each other which isn't what was happening. Several of the other descriptions you gave about how you think it was set up is contradictory to the announcer at the event explaining what was about to take place as well. Thanks for watching, and the concern, but it appears that it was YOU that didn't do your due diligence.
@zabriel13 I disagree, I think no matter what Lennox was saying, he always used backwards logic, horrible leaps of logic, didn't even understand what faith or evolution were, and simply used blatantly unrelated or contradicting arguments and ideas to "disprove" or attack atheism, no matter if it was true or not. You can't disprove atheism in any way other than positively proving your own religion... I would really like to ask Lennox why he only believes in the Christian god and not the others.
When they said in the interest of Christian charity that was not lame, it was light humour. Also I don't remember Lennox saying "without religion morality goes into decline". Correct me if I'm wrong. This is not really a review, its your own arguments presented again. I think your bias towards Dawkins is more in evidence than the foundations bias towards Lennox which you imply.
also just as a religion can be used by people (who are always evil- just as i am evil and u are evil) to do evil things so can a stance such as atheism and or naturalism - like lenin.
-i would like it if you would take the privlage that you have of posting personal videos, and give respect to two wiser men then either of us.But that is just me, i do enjoy your videos and value your views.
Did we watch the same debate? No, I don't suppose we did. You saw what your gut told you you'd see, just as I did. Difference is that a)your gut is atheist and mine is religious and b) you'll die in the last ditch denying that what you're perceiving is extrapolated from that gut instinct rather than from that rationality you claim as your monopoly, whereas I'm prepared to admit this of myself.
Perhaps you should have ended "b" with this about you:
"I'll die in the last ditch denying that what I'm perceiving is extrapolated from that gut instinct rather than from that rationality I claim as my monopoly"
I'm willing to admit a bias to the atheist view point...however, there wasn't a single piece of solid evidence presented from the theist side for me to "deny". It's no "gut instinct"...it's rational THOUGHT and LOGIC that makes me doubt.
Wrong. We don't work with our "gut". Rationality demands facts and supporting evidence, not to mention a logical framework to (with sufficient data) explain those facts.
You stick with your gut and what it produces (Shit), I'll stick with my brain and what it produces (Reason).
And don't think for a second that we Atheists weren't ourselves subjected to a pro-Christian bias as kids. Most were. We OVERCAME our bias towards Christianity and arrived at Atheism BECAUSE it makes more sense.
its ok, eventually the human race will outgrow religion. God is everything we cant understand. Once the scientific progress will advance far enough to present proof on the universe creation, religion will be gradually obandoned.
I'd like to agree, but for some reason these idiots aren't going away. What we already know should have done in religion once and for all before now. This is going to be a long, hard fight to the ideological finish. With us at best claiming a simple majority. There will always be Flat Earthers....
It's good Atheism is finally going on the offensive. Enough pandering to these idiots and making excuses for their ignorance. It's the 21st Century, time to grow up!!!
@andron333 That is God of the gaps. Would you say that this argument could be shown through the allegorical view of believing that because I do not understand a motorcar I contribute its operation and function to a magical MR Ford that lives inside the motor?
Why do all the people who say Dawkins got "owned" never offer any reason for that analysis. The debate was staged in favour of Lennox in that he was always in the responding position, and still it all boiled down, in the end, to belief without evidence (Faith) that events portrayed in the Bible are true.
Pick apart the arguements, show were dawkins was owned, where he made mistakes, and you will get credibility.
On the contrary, Dawkins had the opportunity to be in the drivers seat for the entire debate. The audience was polite. The moderation was good, but not heavy handed. Dawkins had the advantage of control of the agenda since the debate was about his book. It was his quotes that were read exclusively and he had both the first statement, in which he could have further set the tone and agenda and the last word, in which he could have argued his position unopposed.
Lennox says that the idea that a guy rotted for three days and came back to life, is at the center of his world view.
This would have been marginally acceptable 200 years ago, but now of course we know that it is a neurological and biological impossibility of the highest order.
Lennox believes in things which are known, with absolute certainty, to be completely impossible.
At least understand the argument: The definition of "miracle" is that the normal "laws" of physics (more accurately, the normal macroscopic consistency of physics) are violated or suspended.
The violation of this "known" consistancy is the very vehicle used by God as evidence that He is both beyond these "laws" and their ultimate creator. It then follows that the Christ was in fact who he claimed to be because there is no other explanation for his continued life.
Violation of laws is the evidence. I agree it would be, if there was in fact any evidence. Since there is none, its not exactly conclusive is it?
In any debate the responding position is stonger. If I state that Science is accurate, you then state that Science is a load of crap, then I have to move onto another subject without response, I am in a weak position.
You fail to grasp the nature of the debate and its obvious bias, you also fail to grasp that if there were indeed evidence
You betray yourself. The fact is that you yourself have not personally observed most of what you believe either. No one has. You only trust your sources. You are exactly like those you criticize in this regard. All argument comes down to faith.
You know little about debate. In this case, Dawkins was in the catbird seat for the reasons I stated. He did not even advance many of his better arguments successfully.
You prove my points for me. Suggesting knowledge of Caesar is comparable to knowledge of Jesus Christ as the son of God. Yeah... Suggesting that I take scientific argument on faith. So crude. Science does not deal in absolutes most of the time, testable hypothesis become theories. If evidence contradicts the theories, they are changed/discarded, if it confirms them they are strengthened. Faith is belief without evidence. I have plenty of evidence, you have none. Your just too blind to see.
I am not just suggesting it; it is a fact. Since you are not old enough to have personally seen Julius Caesar, you must rely on the reporting of others. I have exactly the same relationship with Jesus Christ. The argument then is then based on the credibility of the sources, not in the nature of the "proof". You have no advantage here. In fact, your belief that your sources on Julius Caesar are accurate is based on faith of exactly the same kind as mine in Jesus Christ.
You betray your scientific ignorance. Science does, in fact, seek "absolutes". The holy grail of any scientific endeavor is to produce an absolutely accurate description, model or explanation for a given phenomenon. The problem in this Universe is that as you drill further and further down into the true nature of things you begin to find that its behavior becomes both strange and seemingly complex. Although science my someday make sense of it.
Your schoolboy explanation of the "scientific method" does nothing to advance your point. The fact is that we are on equal footing on the faith issue.
I can point out to you (if you are incapable of seeing it yourself), numerous examples of things that you believe that you are accepting on complete faith without understanding.
I take your challenge: prove that all the reporting of Gods interaction in this world are false or unreliable. Bring on the evidence you claim you have tough guy.
Burden of proof rests with the person making the claim, not with the person denying it. Think Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster. Define faith. Faith is belief without evidence. If it were not that, it would not be faith. Furthermore, religious faith actually requires you to believe without evidence, to have faith. Science, and pretty much everything else for that matter, is only concerned with truth understanding. If you don't understand the distinction between belief, which of course
I am challenging your assertion that you are in procession of "evidence"...your words.
You now seen to be referring me to others to have them make your arguments for you. As it happens, I am familiar with their arguments.
Although I have pointed out to you your misunderstanding of the faith argument, you do not need to use outside sources of any kind to know of the existence and nature of God. You can meet with Him yourself.
The statement "knock and the door will be opened" is true.
of those miracles then science would accept that God is real. Since there is no evidence, they are not accepted. There is no point in a debate since you will counter logic and truth with faith and dismissal without evidence or reason to protect faith, and so I decline your offer for the same reason others decline to debate. If you are willing to delude yourself you are correct, that is fine. I won't cheapen myself to indulge you.
Answer this: what "evidence" do you have that Julius Caesar existed? I have precisely he same evidence that Jesus Christ existed. We both ultimately have to trust our source. In this we are no different. If we argue, we then have to debate the integrity of our sources= trust.
Do not lecture me about "faith". You must rely on it even more than I. You and your ilk presume to be champions of "reason" and "science" when in fact you do not understand either and misuse both.
Occam's razor tells us that when we can choose between a fantastically improbable supernatural explanation (for example virgin birth) and a natural and plausible explanation (the postman) the latter is probably correct.
If you think that the latter explanation requires more faith than the former (or any faith at all) then you are completely bananas.
The first non-Christian testimony to the existence of Jesus was by Flavius Josephus, who wrote a couple of small passages about Jesus in about 90 a.d. I think.
Caesar is mentioned in thousands of documents, minted in coins, made into statues etc, all of this done when Caesar was actually alive.
You are debating the credibility of the sources, not something inherent in the argumentative technique. This is exactly my point. You believe that the credibility of these sources is high enough for you to have faith that they are accurate but your faith is not based on personal observation. Similarly, you do not believe that the sources for God's interaction in this world are credible so you have no faith.
can be wrong, and faith, then I suggest you go and watch the videos by the atheist experience for a more concise explanation than I can present here. I base my beliefs on evidence, those beliefs may ultimately turn out to be false. I have no loyalty to those beliefs, I just want them to be true, and can change them. Your beliefs are based on faith, faith that will endure despite the evidence. Since you can't see that, I shall waste no more words on you.
Whether it is water walking, pyramid power, magic underwear, or Pleadian space aliens, somebody is always gullible enough, adequately detached from reality, to believe it.
Past the name calling and exaggeration, do you have anything of actual substance that would advance your point or would you just like to trade insults:
You live in an ocean of self-evident proof, where you need only to look slightly beyond your own feeble selves for enlightenment, and yet, the only thing you seem to be comfortable with is the smell of your own smug, self-referencing piss. Worse, you not only deny true freedom to yourselves, but you resent others who have achieved it.
You are immune to rational arguments that conflict with your world view, because, in the words of Thomas Paine, Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
You would be more credible had you actually attempted to make a rational argument. So far, your excuse seems to be in a wobbly orbit about the notion that you refuse to attempt it because you presume that I and others won't or can't follow it.
You are like so many others of your ilk. You nod your head smugly and knowingly to others in your inbred club having agreed among yourselves that the case has already been made and the debate already won.
Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.
C. S. Lewis
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
If I ever get so messed up that I start believing in talking snakes and imaginary friends, I sincerely hope that someone who cares for me will come and shoot me.
I value my cognitive abilities higly, and try to avoid things that would destroy them, such as lobotomy, religion, skitsophrenia, or severe brain injury.
At least understand the premise of the argument in which you are engaged. By definition a "miracle" is an event where the normal constancy of causality and physics is suspended. This then requires either the intervention of something beyond physics (God) or a new understanding of physics.
There is ample testimony that precisely what you say happened HAS happened in the past. You therefore must either show that they were mistaken or you need to explain how causality was changed.
This may surprise you, but I could be persuaded that people are communicating with aliens. I do not have an a priori position on this. There is no reason to assume that we are alone in this very big Universe, nor is there a theological problem with this. The Bible is completely silent on this point.
It is interesting that although you claim to be the open minded one, you are the one with the preconceptions.
You sputter and bluster about the triumph of "reason" and "science", yet you seem to not understand either. So far, you have been unable to summon either to your predicament.
You are like an apprentice witchdoctor: you know only partially the incantations of the arguments on your side and in your favor, but you know not the complexity of the spell nor what powers you must invoke.
First, bring forth your best argument, then we shall set about the business of determining how it has failed.
It is hard to choose the best argument against religion in general, or Christianity in particular, because there are so many.
The most fundamental argument is that there is no evidence whatsoever that would support the existence of any supernatural beings, except silly testimonial evidence.
Another one might be that in complete absence of evidence, anyone's god theory is just as good as anyone else's.
If you discount "testimonial" evidence of all kinds, then you must believe that all events that have happened outside of your sight or time are outside of consideration.
Is this your contention?
If so, is there any circumstance in which you could be persuaded via anothers experience?
If not, then you must take the position that all understanding or enlightenment must come from within.
That's silly. Read my comment regarding source criticism below.
If a source contains some claims which could not possibly be true (Noah's flood, Jonah living inside a whale, talking snakes and donkeys, resurrections, tower of babel story, genesis etc) then according to the principles of source criticism one should be highly critical about everything else in that source also.
Can you explain what it is about past writing that makes them "wacky" other than they disagree with your world view? Do you feel this way about all ancient writing or only that that you disagree with?
>voices... Yes that is one explanation. There are others. Your point?
>corpse... See my earlier explanation of "miracle"
>head... So it is your contention that the observed phenomenon were of a hallucinatory nature or are you sticking with your earlier position that is was all fiction?
It is probably a mix of hearsay and stories of often actual events which were told from mouth to mouth before they were put on paper, and which were sexed up at every stage.
Jesus might very well have existed, he might even have had a "god complex", but the miracle stories are absurd.
Read about John Frum and see if you can spot any similarities between him and Jesus?
Hardly, all Lennox managed to do was show himself to be an opportunistic rhetorition. If Dawkins seemed off kilter, it was largely because the format of the "debate" was profoundly unfair to him.
you are right to say most people,not all,but most. I respect much more someone or even a scientist that lets say believes the bible but gives a very clear mathematical,biological or even cosmological explaination of how it happened. I found tho that in the debate (maybe you didnt think so) but lennox was much stronger with his counter arguments,humour etc.. i was really un-impressed with dawkins perfomance. I do however thi8nk he was much more dominant when he went against Alister Mcgrath.
I definitely saw the debate very different. Lennox only had the one good moment where he caught Dawkins in a semantics argument by applying two different definitions to "faith"...the only other reason that I would say his "counter arguments" would appear that way to you was because Dawkins WASN'T ALLOWED counter arguments!!!! He had to try and force them into his time on the next question...and he still crushed his claims.
Many people confuse God with religion. Religion is man made. Beliving in God(Jesus) is not a religion - God is Truth. Just as Dawkins would say aetheism is not a religion it is truth. Dawkins and Lennox really agree here it is just Dawkins puts God in the religion category. The comment on religion being bad doesn't apply to the true God because He wouldn't tell anyone to do something evil because He isn't evil He is good. Here again Lennox would agree with Dawkins on religion(man made).
religion and truth have nothing to do with each other. Even if you take the position that the religion is "true"...it's still a religion. JUST believing that a god exists ISN'T enough to constitute a religion, but as soon as you call that god Yahweh and claim that he has a son Jesus who died on the cross etc....now you have a religion.
to be honest,i didn't want to waste my time mentioning all of what you said but, just want to mention the part in which you accuse lennox of using a low blow on dawkins at the beginning.
The Arbiter-ref or whatever you what to call him said specifically to talk about themselves,what they think of of the debate and THE BOOK!.
Dawkins explained very well his life and from his age of 16 years old how he "realised" the truth and described creationism in his words. Lennox just did the same.
I entirely disagree. The opening statements were to be a BIOGRAPHY of each man and Dawkins did just that. Lennox spent all of his time countering Dawkins with no time for Dawkins to respond. It was dirty, and planned.
as far as planning is concerned. Dawkins knew and accepted how the debate would be and discussed,he sure miscalculated how biased it could feel at one point but i say dont agree to something and complain about it later.
as a remark, even creationists admitted this was not a fair system but pointed out that it was changed during the course of it and that lennox was cut many times sue to the short time.
more of an exchange doesnt mean it wasnt an exchange at all. I wouldnt say completly wrong there either. Like i said, everybody un-baised enough would admit this was defenetly a biased debate in a setting that is correct in many other fashion and ways(like you tube etc..) but that isnt the fair way of making a debate. you dont need dawkins himself in those cases since its a talk TO the book rather than TO the person. still,he was told before and at the intro the way this would work. he agreed.
i specially re-watched the debate once i listen to your video and the REF specifficaly said that both men had to: talk about themselves,their path of life and what they think about the book.
Dawkins did that and had MANY strong comments about his realisation of the truth and creation itself.
Lennoz mention everything from his life in the Soviet-U, when he ran a radio station, his questionings and temporary atheism, about his studies and what seperated himself from dawkins
anyway,he mentioned his whole lifetime,his childhood etc.. until he talked about the book,what he thought of what he believed was the real delusion of the book. I think you have a problem just to the fact that dawkins couldnt respond. which he could in the later debate point anyway.
Dawkins spoke and looked directly at the crowd...Lennox spoke nearly the ENTIRE TIME facing Dawkins. Say what you like, but the first part was just supposed to be an introduction...Lennox took the time to go on attack. I'll be glad to show you my program where it says that in case you didn't get one.
i didnt see lennox`s eye twitching here, he faced the crowd as he faced dawkins several times,i dont see why it matters since his words and sounds cannot be directed to be heard only by specific people.Dawkins is a person that is introduced to aswell as Dawkins made a reference to northern ireland aswell. if you complain about the way those intro were directed or done,then complain to the ref. the rules were clear, themselves, path of life, thought about debate and book.
Oh, don't even get me started on the "mediator"...he sucked ass in both directions. Of course, what would you expect when the mediator is FROM the group supporting Lennox. Could they not find ANYONE that would at least appear to be impartial?
Well, to be honest, it's not hard to embarrass most people of faith because they claim such empirical knowledge while basing everything on the Bible without understanding true science. I'm sure Dawkins wasn't intimidated at all...though in general, he prefers to just avoid "creationists" because it's so pointless. Those people tend to just refuse to accept anything harder to understand than "god did it".
Next time you go to a discussion with them try not to have such a narrow mind set that everything Lennox says is wrong and unrassional. please be more open minded, thats what he the least expects from you to understand what he means. Its also what God expects from you that you can be saved one day. Amen.
You're doing your own side of the argument a disservice by speaking on their behalf with this butchery of the English language. The word you're looking for is "irrational."
How about the next time you watch one of my videos that YOU be more open-minded? Seeing how you can read my mind and all and make these assumptions and state them so well with your omniscience...tell me...what color underwear am I wearing?
The people who are deciding what rationality is (along with many other moral and social decisions), depends on the context.
Think about it.
Not too long ago, slavery was legal and socially acceptable, but today, if I were to say that my slave is making dinner tonight, you would think I would be joking (or out of my mind).
The same goes for rationality. It all depends on the social context.
I believe that there is an ultimate truth, that is not dependent on the social context.
Different societies and groups interpret this truth differently, but only the "true truth" will answer all of the given questions.
It's like a scientific theory. The one that answers the most questions is the one that is chosen. If there is something that directly contradicts the theory, it should be abandoned.
Of course, this doesn't happen, because we're still stuck with evolution and the big bang.
im just saying most atheists can refute the design argument with little to no effort
and me and king heathen can do that
i even have a video about it
im not arguing that John Lennox is stupid, that would just be insane, im saying that as 1 of the forerunners in the creationist mindset he still uses arguments that ur everyday atheist can disprove in seconds
doesnt mean anything about him just means creationists could try thinking elsewhere for once
First of all Orygyn your statement "goes to show u 3 doctorates aint everything " makes me think your smarter than him, however this is a ongoing comment situation, so I understand your true intent. I apologize if I affended you and jumped into conclusions, however when you say "refute design arguments with little to no effort" is not correct at all. You might think and say you are "disproving in seconds" but your actually stating what you think not actually disproving anything. Cont.
Continued-To them, no available information collected by human intelligence is factual knowledge.
InsanityComplex1 1 month ago
Religious faith is belief without evidence as most christians will agree upon as the definition and grounds for their worship as others would demonstrate arrogance in their delusion by claiming they KNOW. Faith can also be defined as TRUST, in the realistic sense, which would be, well, outside the realm of mystical insanity that is religion.
As for beliefs, well, everything to them is in terms of beliefs-belief in science, technology, evolution etc. fuckin 500 limit...
InsanityComplex1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining 2 the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
May be you should be the one to debate Lennox since you think you know better than Dawkins! When are you publishing your own book and invite Lennox to debate it. To my observation, Dawkins was sooo lost that I even wondered his competence in debating or even on whether he was the one that wrote the book itself. Seriously, that was the worst perfomance on the atheist side!
jeannshi 4 months ago
@jeannshi you meant to finish off by saying in your opinion. if dawkins lost an argument to every faith we would have a sky full of imaginary friends above us.so religions are basicaly the security blanket of the weak,insecure,non rationalists,self deceiving fools that fear what they do not understand. claiming that your gods got a bigger cock than the next is extremly stupid. but hey dont think when youve got a virtue like blind faith [wink]
kram83au 1 month ago
I got to the 4 minute mark...and i was horrified at some of the stuff u said....u say at 3:04-3:09 that faith being blind is a given....which is totally not the definition of faith....but anyway, u then say that at 3:55 that faith isnt blind wen talkin bout ur wife???
thumbs up ppl if im not alone in seeing this flaw
saleebyman 6 months ago
@saleebyman you should have kept watching...you missed the point and misunderstood what I was saying about faith.
KingHeathen 6 months ago
He says faith is blind. IF FAITH, THEN BLIND!!! Don't change the statement.
MPaulHolmes 10 months ago
kingheathen you are an idiot
codyaustinpemberton 10 months ago
I saw the debate and thought that both sides were treated fairly, I thought that Lennox was the one who was cut off several times, and was given only a min or so for his final remarks, and that Dawkins often times did reply to what Lennox said, when necessary which ate up time that caused the final point to not really be discussed. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate and thought both men did a fantastic job. I was sad when it was over because I wanted to hear more.
coastertwin14 11 months ago
King Heathen, this is in response to your comment about the assumption that the universe needed to be created. It's clearly not the same argument. The Universe was indeed created from nothing according to the big bang theory, the means by which this was accomplished, be it God or Magic is irrelevant. It did not naturally evolve into being, it came from (Nothing). It fits the definition of Created perfectly.
neomatrix031 1 year ago
@neomatrix031 Sorry, but no. The Big Bang says that the universe was formed out of an expansion of a singularity. The singularity is far from "nothing."
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen Your right a singularity is far from nothing, however: Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. - Big-Bang-Theory . com
neomatrix031 1 year ago
@neomatrix031 With all due respect to "All about Science"...they are dead wrong. Steven Hawking explains very clearly that we don't even have any way of knowing what was or wasn't there prior to the Big Bang. The concept that before it was "nothing" is NOT part of the theory. It's the same as creationists claiming that "the theory of evolution" says that life came from non-life. No, that would be abiogenesis. Evolution starts AFTER the first living thing. Big Bang with the singularity.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen Every modern version of the big bang theory I've ever read says the universe essentially came from nothing, I didn't mention the equally flawed theory of evolution or abiogenesis only that the word "created" is valid in accordance with the modern big bang theory it is however not appropriate when asking who created God as God couldn't be created cause then he couldn't be God. You see how one is possible and the other is not? I conclude It's not the same argument.
neomatrix031 1 year ago
@neomatrix031 Could you name one of these "versions" you've seen? Stephen Hawking is very clear to state in "The Universe in a Nutshell" That we simply don't know nor have the ability to know what came before the Big Bang and even said in a recent interview that he would like to know "why there is something instead of nothing" which is a statement that he's said MANY times in response to the "something from nothing" mis-characterization of what the theory actually says.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
evolution is a huge fallacy....fish, frog, dinosaur, gorilla . monkey people.
noimplant4me 1 year ago
@noimplant4me And which fallacy would that be? The one you just made up because you have no clue what a "fallacy" is? (Not to mention that your poor example of how you think the Theory of Evolution works is flawed in many many ways)
KingHeathen 1 year ago 2
@noimplant4me
"evolution is a huge fallacy"
A fallacy with massive amounts of evidence in its favor. How about that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@noimplant4me God made himself. He tugged into his hand and used the sperm to fertilize himself. How? Read Luke 1.37 bible gateway.com "true story." He also made the earth in 6,000 years. Which is like believing the distance between San Francisco and New York is 8 yards. My pet monkey ate my pet frog and turned into a fronkey.
stevjen1 1 year ago
Hello KingHeathen, You talk about things being bad. On what basis do you say something is bad in and atheist universe? You spoke of people being logical. How do you account for logic in an atheist universe?
Basically you kept saying saying that Lennox's arguments were "unfounded." What is your support for your assertion that his arguments were unfounded?
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism
"Bad" and "logical" don't change in "an atheist universe" vs a "theist universe."
Bad-when other alternatives would have produced a more beneficial outcome. (relative to "good")
Logical-something fits within our observable reality. (relative to "illogical")
If you like I can get you a link to an online dictionary....I figured that these were pretty well accepted concepts of "bad" and "logical." I'll try to use smaller words in the future for you.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen,
I hope all is well with you.
A beneficial outcome may be different for each individual person or society. Hitler thought is was beneficial to the world to exterminate the Jewish people. On what basis do you say he was wrong in an atheist universe? I mean Hitler wanted to get rid of people he perceived to be weak. He wanted to create a master race.
Observable reality? Ok show me a law of logic?
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism
I can say he was wrong because the Jewish people weren't a part of that decision, but were a definite part of the outcome. Hitler's desire to create what HE thought was a master race infringed on another group's existence. As the old saying goes...your rights end where someone else's begins. Find that in your Bible. You can't. Therefore, I turn the question around to you. How do you determine right from wrong about something if it isn't in your Bible?
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen,
Who says they have to be part of the decision? Again, Hitler thought he was helping the human race by deleting people he thought were poisoning the gene pool. Darwin also thought "inferior races" would be done away with so he did not see them as equal. That idea fits Darwinian theory not the Judeo Christian world view that teaches that people are created in God's image and therefore have equal intrinsic value.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism
The free world says that they have to be a part of the decision. See this is the part where your argument falls apart. Remove god, remove religion, remove all governmental influence and order will restore itself over time. We learn quickly that working together is more beneficial than working against each other and a group that wishes to eliminate one of our allies is an equal threat to ourselves.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen,
OK I will take that as a non answer.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism As was your response to me....fitting, isn't it?
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen,
I answered you and you did not answer.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism Afraid not...try again, or this will be my final response on the issue.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen,
From your boy Darwin:
The more civilized so-called CAUCASIAN RACES have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the LOWER RACES will have been eliminated by the HIGHER civilized RACES throughout the world. - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, pg. 318....
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism
Being that you completely ignored my question and counterpoints and instead chose to quote mine something completely irrelevant to anything that I agree with....I'd say we are done here...unless you'd like to try again.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
Y Combinator foundation is for Christians?
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Dawkins isn't the best person to debate about the existence of god. He's pretty much a science guy. He would do fine arguing against creationism, but he doesn't seem to have a very strong philosophic basis for his arguments. I've never really heard Dawkins talk epistemology in any detail.
IMO, launching into the big bang and evolution as evidence for the non-existence of god is a pretty poor tactic if you want to address any of your opponent's points that probably don't come from science.
Ormaaj 2 years ago 3
I agree, although he can realy good when he get's angry. Sadly that doesn't happen very often. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens could help him with that :)
Xigano1 2 years ago
Excellent review on the debate, your completely right on calling out Mr. Lennox little sneaky attack on Dawkins at the start of the debate! I felt disappointed on how the structure on this debate was played out , felt like it was purposely giving Mr. Lennox an advantage! Overall as a Catholic there was never a time in this debate where Mr. Lennox gave me a good enough reason not to turn my back on Christianity.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
—André Gide
stalyun82 2 years ago
"Psychotic people will be psychotic whether they're religious or not"
YES!!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!!!!!
You see? It doesn't matter if they have religion to use as a scapegoat, as long as they have one idea to use as a scapegoat, they'll use it. Religion is equal to all other avenues of justification in their minds.
NumberNile 2 years ago
Wait, the universe as a whole (and this has been philosophically demonstrated) is radically contingent, in other words, it needs something to create and sustain it. God is not radically contingent, he/she/it is self-sufficient. If you make God out to be not so, then you cause a chain of infinite regress. Baaaaaaad.
NumberNile 2 years ago
Im not asking you to prove atheism;atheism in itself is basically agnosticism since it only declines a certain reality but doesn't propose another.What I'm asking for proof for is naturalism, which actually proposes an entirely different explanation for reality,not simply debunking another.The entire premise of the unicorn is to defend atheism, not naturalism. Now, since I've answered your question, answer mine.What evidence has made you so confident in naturalism?(not just atheism)
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
EVERYTHING we see is produced through natural causes. NAME ONE THING that isn't.
There's your evidence.
Like I said, you still don't understand the answers because you are still asking the wrong questions.
We've beaten this dead horse.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
reality itself. You could agure that one cant really trust there sencory input, as such my "mind" whatever it is, might be pluged into the matrex, or perhaps I'm just part of the Red Kings dream. I must hope that reality is indeed real, any test I use to prove it would itself be part of the reality that I assume is real, and therfor only able to matter if realtiy is real. But reality itself might not be real.
shedininja001 2 years ago
you're right about where I was going with it;I dont believe in unicorns because there is no evidence.Can I say for sure they don't exist?Of course not,because I don't know everything.The problem is that you're missing the point;with unicorns we don't believe because there is no evidence.I believe intelligent design because I see fossils, genetics,and the universe as evidence.You see them as evidence for naturalism.Its about how we translate the evidence that is there not whether or not it exists
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Atheism requires that abiogenesis is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe.Such a scenario,if true,would make it likely that unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe.Therefore,an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance.The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically,since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.
Next
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Atheism requires nothing except the lack of belief in any deities.
And it's funny, you say that it logically fails....yet you said exactly what I expected you to say. Now, since you can't prove that unicorns don't exist...do you now BELIEVE in unicorns?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
You keep coming back to that even after its been addressed.
Fine. I'll answer that if you can give an answer to this: I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. Do you have evidence that they do? (yes there is a point to the question)
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
OK...you STILL aren't answering the question...See, this is a NEW question. The first was what evidence do you have that unicorns don't exist? Your answer simply stated that we can't say for sure that they don't. So I asked it a new way asking "Do you now believe in them?" which is a YES or NO question and you respond with asking for evidence that they DO exist.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
To translate: You don't believe in unicorns because there isn't any evidence. Well, I see no evidence for your god.
Your original question was what evidence do we have for atheism...which is the non-existence of any gods. (what evidence do we have for a-unicornism...which is the non-existence of unicorns)
Do you understand now?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
I mean what question should I be asking? I'm not asking that I prove I'm not wrong- I'm asking that you prove you're right. My question is a perfectly reasonable one-you say science truly supports naturalism because that's where all the evidence points. Okay, fine. I would like to know what that evidence is. After all, according to you evidence is the only way to know anything, right? So i'm asking for the evidence that gives you so much confidence in your belief.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
TWICE, I have given you an example of the type of question you should ask. TWICE, you have failed to even address it.
Go back and try again.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
You mean the unicorn question? Fine. Your premise about the unicorn relies more on reason than scientific data, as it simply is impossible to prove that unicorns exist (not saying I believe in them)
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
I agree that there are plenty of aspects of religion that are flat out dangerous. And I also agree that bad people do bad things regardless of whether or not they're religious. But I think you're missing the point when Lennox pointed out the evils some atheists have done. The point isn't that atheism gives you permission to do evil- the point is that there is no one other than outselves to be held accountable to, so no one to prohibit any moral misbehavior. Do you disagree?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Society prohibits any immoral behavior. No religion required.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Overall this was an interesting debate. But I am curious about some of the comments you made. For instance, I've heard you mention several times in other vids that there is no evidence for God. Yet I have grown up my entire life on not just accepting my faith blindly, but looking for evidence and thinking it out, and have found sufficient reason to find it plausible. The question I would like to ask you (and again this is not biblebashing but honest inquiry), what evidence supports atheism?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
"what evidence supports atheism?"
This question is the heart of why you don't and (at least right now) won't understand.
Think of it this way...
"What evidence supports not believing in unicorns?"
The same is applied to your god.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
That doesn't answer my question. I am not asking for any analogies or clever retorts. I'm not even asking you to prove God doesn't exist, which is a rediculous request. Just a few hard facts that undeniably point towards a naturalistic solution. This isn't a sarcastic or rhetorical question- i've simply heard over and over how science proves naturalism, yet no one has ever presented me with one of those facts. Justell me the evidence that is the source of your confidence in this belief.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
You aren't going to understand the answer because you are asking the wrong question.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Enlighten me.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
I already tried...you ignored it just as I expected you to. Answer the question I asked.
"What evidence supports NOT believing in unicorns?"
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Dostoyevsky, " without God all is permissible" there can be no basis for an objective morality without God.
slumber56 2 years ago
FAIL
320iguy 2 years ago
LOOL u R embittered
chrislasscom 2 years ago
of course this douchebag made lennox look bad cuz he's on the atheist side. what i must point out is that both men were AWESOME so there's no point bashing lennox if you're not going to bash dawkins as well, as dawkins made mistakes too.
kingheathen, to you who insults a man like Doctor Lennox, oxford professor; where's your Doctorate? you are the stupidest thing i've heard XD
eddie2042 2 years ago
You don't know if I have a doctorate or not and/or what field of studies I would have such a claim....
Coming in blindly ignorant and making accusations....now THAT is the stupidest thing!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Rofl, and the clown shows his true nature.
"You don't know if I have a doctorate or not and/or what field of studies I would have such a claim...."
and you don't know that I've been secretly spying on you since you were born. i know everything you do, everything you know. and you sir, DO NOT have a doctorate.
eddie2042 2 years ago
lol....and you show that you are a liar. Run along troll.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
"lol....and you show that you are a liar. Run along troll."
ok srry Dr. KingHeathen. truth is you're also troll, except you make videos proving it, i just make comments XDhaha
eddie2042 2 years ago
so you are not only a liar, but also someone that doesn't know what "troll" means in this sense. You really should stop embarrassing yourself.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
LOL! PWNED him.
coolbeens21 2 years ago
Dawkins made excellent summary of the atheism at the end. It was on the one hand beautiful and on the other proving why enlighted atheism is superior to theism :)
7w0jst4ry 2 years ago
No, but it does make both of you morons. Dawkins is not anybody's idol. Hell, a lot of atheists don't even like Dawkins. It's not like he's the bloody Pope of skepticism.
Dawkins wasn't destroyed anyhow. Nobody is destroyed until they perform as badly as Sarah Palin did at ANY of her debates and interviews. Both men are extremely intelligent and performed ably.
zabriel13 2 years ago 7
@zabriel13 I must say, I agree strongly with both of the Highest rated comments on this video! It is a great encouragement to me to see that members of the atheistic persuasion (Unlike myself) will in fact belittle Dawkin's at least in a minuscule amount. I think that this debate was an excellent show of human maturity and extremely advanced intellect ON BOTH SIDES of the argument. Dear Kingheathen: Had you actually researched this debate, or debating in general you would soon realize that not
Nucleartist 1 year ago
@zabriel13 only did Dawkins agree to the terms and topics set up by fixed point, but he already knew the layout for the debate. You do realize that the topics covered in a debate are in no way a secret to the contestants right? Also I think it is very petty of you to make it appear that Dawkins was treated unfairly when Dawkins HIMSELF stated that where normal christian groups stumble at fail at being civil in fair debate and facing the issues fixed point succeeds in making the debates fair and
Nucleartist 1 year ago
@Nucleartist Dawkins was very clear that his understanding was that they would get a chance to respond to each other which isn't what was happening. Several of the other descriptions you gave about how you think it was set up is contradictory to the announcer at the event explaining what was about to take place as well. Thanks for watching, and the concern, but it appears that it was YOU that didn't do your due diligence.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@zabriel13 I disagree, I think no matter what Lennox was saying, he always used backwards logic, horrible leaps of logic, didn't even understand what faith or evolution were, and simply used blatantly unrelated or contradicting arguments and ideas to "disprove" or attack atheism, no matter if it was true or not. You can't disprove atheism in any way other than positively proving your own religion... I would really like to ask Lennox why he only believes in the Christian god and not the others.
TserraG 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so did your moms asshole last night.
KrackerJacker 2 years ago
When they said in the interest of Christian charity that was not lame, it was light humour. Also I don't remember Lennox saying "without religion morality goes into decline". Correct me if I'm wrong. This is not really a review, its your own arguments presented again. I think your bias towards Dawkins is more in evidence than the foundations bias towards Lennox which you imply.
Nimzomyth68 2 years ago
Congratulations, "KingHeathen", you believe that you are not a believer, or have no faith in anything :)
kaunaskas 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
John 14:17
Keep strong brothers and sisters in Christ
mingis11 3 years ago
Lennox is ID? With God being the creating god?
EvilJamJar 3 years ago
be careful that you don't commit straw-man
also just as a religion can be used by people (who are always evil- just as i am evil and u are evil) to do evil things so can a stance such as atheism and or naturalism - like lenin.
-i would like it if you would take the privlage that you have of posting personal videos, and give respect to two wiser men then either of us.But that is just me, i do enjoy your videos and value your views.
dannytheshort 3 years ago
Did we watch the same debate? No, I don't suppose we did. You saw what your gut told you you'd see, just as I did. Difference is that a)your gut is atheist and mine is religious and b) you'll die in the last ditch denying that what you're perceiving is extrapolated from that gut instinct rather than from that rationality you claim as your monopoly, whereas I'm prepared to admit this of myself.
Eggball1 3 years ago
Perhaps you should have ended "b" with this about you:
"I'll die in the last ditch denying that what I'm perceiving is extrapolated from that gut instinct rather than from that rationality I claim as my monopoly"
I'm willing to admit a bias to the atheist view point...however, there wasn't a single piece of solid evidence presented from the theist side for me to "deny". It's no "gut instinct"...it's rational THOUGHT and LOGIC that makes me doubt.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Wrong. We don't work with our "gut". Rationality demands facts and supporting evidence, not to mention a logical framework to (with sufficient data) explain those facts.
You stick with your gut and what it produces (Shit), I'll stick with my brain and what it produces (Reason).
And don't think for a second that we Atheists weren't ourselves subjected to a pro-Christian bias as kids. Most were. We OVERCAME our bias towards Christianity and arrived at Atheism BECAUSE it makes more sense.
Lowkey1979 3 years ago 2
its ok, eventually the human race will outgrow religion. God is everything we cant understand. Once the scientific progress will advance far enough to present proof on the universe creation, religion will be gradually obandoned.
andron333 3 years ago 2
hooray, well put.
tamosfan 3 years ago
I'd like to agree, but for some reason these idiots aren't going away. What we already know should have done in religion once and for all before now. This is going to be a long, hard fight to the ideological finish. With us at best claiming a simple majority. There will always be Flat Earthers....
It's good Atheism is finally going on the offensive. Enough pandering to these idiots and making excuses for their ignorance. It's the 21st Century, time to grow up!!!
Lowkey1979 3 years ago 3
@andron333 That is God of the gaps. Would you say that this argument could be shown through the allegorical view of believing that because I do not understand a motorcar I contribute its operation and function to a magical MR Ford that lives inside the motor?
Nucleartist 1 year ago
Why do all the people who say Dawkins got "owned" never offer any reason for that analysis. The debate was staged in favour of Lennox in that he was always in the responding position, and still it all boiled down, in the end, to belief without evidence (Faith) that events portrayed in the Bible are true.
Pick apart the arguements, show were dawkins was owned, where he made mistakes, and you will get credibility.
Squawkerd 3 years ago
Same reason that people think Palin won her debate with Joe Biden...it's all wishful thinking.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
You're serious!?
On the contrary, Dawkins had the opportunity to be in the drivers seat for the entire debate. The audience was polite. The moderation was good, but not heavy handed. Dawkins had the advantage of control of the agenda since the debate was about his book. It was his quotes that were read exclusively and he had both the first statement, in which he could have further set the tone and agenda and the last word, in which he could have argued his position unopposed.
SyLentze 3 years ago
It would be a much shorter discussion to debate where Dawkins was not "owned".
Perhaps you would like to start first.
Squawkerd - You have 500 characters.
SyLentze 3 years ago
Lennox says that the idea that a guy rotted for three days and came back to life, is at the center of his world view.
This would have been marginally acceptable 200 years ago, but now of course we know that it is a neurological and biological impossibility of the highest order.
Lennox believes in things which are known, with absolute certainty, to be completely impossible.
jtoksa 3 years ago
At least understand the argument: The definition of "miracle" is that the normal "laws" of physics (more accurately, the normal macroscopic consistency of physics) are violated or suspended.
The violation of this "known" consistancy is the very vehicle used by God as evidence that He is both beyond these "laws" and their ultimate creator. It then follows that the Christ was in fact who he claimed to be because there is no other explanation for his continued life.
Quite brilliant really.
SyLentze 3 years ago
Violation of laws is the evidence. I agree it would be, if there was in fact any evidence. Since there is none, its not exactly conclusive is it?
In any debate the responding position is stonger. If I state that Science is accurate, you then state that Science is a load of crap, then I have to move onto another subject without response, I am in a weak position.
You fail to grasp the nature of the debate and its obvious bias, you also fail to grasp that if there were indeed evidence
Squawkerd 3 years ago
You betray yourself. The fact is that you yourself have not personally observed most of what you believe either. No one has. You only trust your sources. You are exactly like those you criticize in this regard. All argument comes down to faith.
You know little about debate. In this case, Dawkins was in the catbird seat for the reasons I stated. He did not even advance many of his better arguments successfully.
His arguments are stronger than his argumentation
SyLentze 3 years ago
> You only trust your sources.
> All argument comes down to faith.
Science believes in an external reality which can be studied through gathering observable, empirical evidence.
Some faith is required here.
For example you have to reject solipsism, the idea that your own mind is the only thing that truly exists, and believe that reality truly exists.
You seem to argue that since it requires "faith", it is the same thing as believing in sky daddies and water walking. That's ridiculous.
jtoksa 3 years ago
You prove my points for me. Suggesting knowledge of Caesar is comparable to knowledge of Jesus Christ as the son of God. Yeah... Suggesting that I take scientific argument on faith. So crude. Science does not deal in absolutes most of the time, testable hypothesis become theories. If evidence contradicts the theories, they are changed/discarded, if it confirms them they are strengthened. Faith is belief without evidence. I have plenty of evidence, you have none. Your just too blind to see.
Squawkerd 3 years ago
I am not just suggesting it; it is a fact. Since you are not old enough to have personally seen Julius Caesar, you must rely on the reporting of others. I have exactly the same relationship with Jesus Christ. The argument then is then based on the credibility of the sources, not in the nature of the "proof". You have no advantage here. In fact, your belief that your sources on Julius Caesar are accurate is based on faith of exactly the same kind as mine in Jesus Christ.
SyLentze 3 years ago
You betray your scientific ignorance. Science does, in fact, seek "absolutes". The holy grail of any scientific endeavor is to produce an absolutely accurate description, model or explanation for a given phenomenon. The problem in this Universe is that as you drill further and further down into the true nature of things you begin to find that its behavior becomes both strange and seemingly complex. Although science my someday make sense of it.
SyLentze 3 years ago
Your schoolboy explanation of the "scientific method" does nothing to advance your point. The fact is that we are on equal footing on the faith issue.
I can point out to you (if you are incapable of seeing it yourself), numerous examples of things that you believe that you are accepting on complete faith without understanding.
I take your challenge: prove that all the reporting of Gods interaction in this world are false or unreliable. Bring on the evidence you claim you have tough guy.
SyLentze 3 years ago
Burden of proof rests with the person making the claim, not with the person denying it. Think Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster. Define faith. Faith is belief without evidence. If it were not that, it would not be faith. Furthermore, religious faith actually requires you to believe without evidence, to have faith. Science, and pretty much everything else for that matter, is only concerned with truth understanding. If you don't understand the distinction between belief, which of course
Squawkerd 3 years ago
I am challenging your assertion that you are in procession of "evidence"...your words.
You now seen to be referring me to others to have them make your arguments for you. As it happens, I am familiar with their arguments.
Although I have pointed out to you your misunderstanding of the faith argument, you do not need to use outside sources of any kind to know of the existence and nature of God. You can meet with Him yourself.
The statement "knock and the door will be opened" is true.
SyLentze 3 years ago
of those miracles then science would accept that God is real. Since there is no evidence, they are not accepted. There is no point in a debate since you will counter logic and truth with faith and dismissal without evidence or reason to protect faith, and so I decline your offer for the same reason others decline to debate. If you are willing to delude yourself you are correct, that is fine. I won't cheapen myself to indulge you.
Squawkerd 3 years ago
Answer this: what "evidence" do you have that Julius Caesar existed? I have precisely he same evidence that Jesus Christ existed. We both ultimately have to trust our source. In this we are no different. If we argue, we then have to debate the integrity of our sources= trust.
Do not lecture me about "faith". You must rely on it even more than I. You and your ilk presume to be champions of "reason" and "science" when in fact you do not understand either and misuse both.
Try again.
SyLentze 3 years ago
> what "evidence" do you have that Julius
> Caesar existed?
> I have precisely he
> same evidence that Jesus Christ existed.
A person called Jesus may well have existed, he may even have thought he was the son of god.
Psychiatry knows this as "god complex".
jtoksa 3 years ago
> Do not lecture me about "faith". You must
> rely on it even more than I.
Occam's razor tells us that when we can choose between a fantastically improbable supernatural explanation (for example virgin birth) and a natural and plausible explanation (the postman) the latter is probably correct.
If you think that the latter explanation requires more faith than the former (or any faith at all) then you are completely bananas.
Sorry about that :-)
jtoksa 3 years ago
> You and your ilk presume to be champions of
> "reason" and "science" when in fact you do
> not understand either and misuse both.
You seem to think that it is reasonable to talk to an invisible friend.
And that it is not reasonable to doubt his existence on the grounds that he's nowhere to be seen.
Let me suggest that the next time you chat with him, kindly ask him to get his ass down here and clear out the uncertainty.
If it's not too much trouble.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> what "evidence" do you have that Julius
> Caesar existed? I have precisely he same
> evidence that Jesus Christ existed
Actually, that's bullshit.
The first non-Christian testimony to the existence of Jesus was by Flavius Josephus, who wrote a couple of small passages about Jesus in
jtoksa 3 years ago
> what "evidence" do you have that Julius
> Caesar existed? I have precisely he same
> evidence that Jesus Christ existed
Actually, that's bullshit.
The first non-Christian testimony to the existence of Jesus was by Flavius Josephus, who wrote a couple of small passages about Jesus in about 90 a.d. I think.
Caesar is mentioned in thousands of documents, minted in coins, made into statues etc, all of this done when Caesar was actually alive.
So, the evidence is in NO WAY comparable.
jtoksa 3 years ago
They are exactly comparable.
You are debating the credibility of the sources, not something inherent in the argumentative technique. This is exactly my point. You believe that the credibility of these sources is high enough for you to have faith that they are accurate but your faith is not based on personal observation. Similarly, you do not believe that the sources for God's interaction in this world are credible so you have no faith.
SyLentze 3 years ago
can be wrong, and faith, then I suggest you go and watch the videos by the atheist experience for a more concise explanation than I can present here. I base my beliefs on evidence, those beliefs may ultimately turn out to be false. I have no loyalty to those beliefs, I just want them to be true, and can change them. Your beliefs are based on faith, faith that will endure despite the evidence. Since you can't see that, I shall waste no more words on you.
Squawkerd 3 years ago
> Quite brilliant really.
Jesus has truly messed up your head.
Whether it is water walking, pyramid power, magic underwear, or Pleadian space aliens, somebody is always gullible enough, adequately detached from reality, to believe it.
jtoksa 3 years ago
Past the name calling and exaggeration, do you have anything of actual substance that would advance your point or would you just like to trade insults:
You live in an ocean of self-evident proof, where you need only to look slightly beyond your own feeble selves for enlightenment, and yet, the only thing you seem to be comfortable with is the smell of your own smug, self-referencing piss. Worse, you not only deny true freedom to yourselves, but you resent others who have achieved it.
SyLentze 3 years ago
> do you have anything of actual substance that
> would advance your point or would you just
> like to trade insults
You are immune to rational arguments that conflict with your world view, because, in the words of Thomas Paine, Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
jtoksa 3 years ago
You would be more credible had you actually attempted to make a rational argument. So far, your excuse seems to be in a wobbly orbit about the notion that you refuse to attempt it because you presume that I and others won't or can't follow it.
You are like so many others of your ilk. You nod your head smugly and knowingly to others in your inbred club having agreed among yourselves that the case has already been made and the debate already won.
You are all hat and no cattle.
SyLentze 3 years ago
Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.
C. S. Lewis
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis
SyLentze 3 years ago
> C. S. Lewis
C S Lewis is indeed an expert in things pertaining to gods.
His own field (fantasy novel writing) and theology are two overlapping magisteria.
jtoksa 3 years ago
ROLF well put!!
ZZZERO94 3 years ago
SyLentze:
If I ever get so messed up that I start believing in talking snakes and imaginary friends, I sincerely hope that someone who cares for me will come and shoot me.
I value my cognitive abilities higly, and try to avoid things that would destroy them, such as lobotomy, religion, skitsophrenia, or severe brain injury.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> do you have anything of actual substance that
> would advance your point or would you just
> like to trade insults
A problem with utterly irrational arguments is that they are immune to all rational counterarguments.
For example you can say that a person whose cells have undergone cell necrosis can come back to life, if a magic man in the sky makes it so.
Clearly, no rational argument can ever work against that.
Then the only weapon left is ridicule, I guess.
jtoksa 3 years ago
At least understand the premise of the argument in which you are engaged. By definition a "miracle" is an event where the normal constancy of causality and physics is suspended. This then requires either the intervention of something beyond physics (God) or a new understanding of physics.
There is ample testimony that precisely what you say happened HAS happened in the past. You therefore must either show that they were mistaken or you need to explain how causality was changed.
SyLentze 3 years ago
> There is ample testimony that precisely what
> you say happened
There is ample testimony that ufo abductions are real, pyramid therapy works, and that Mormon magic underwear protects their wearer against injury.
I bet there is ample testimony of virgin conception also, especially in cultures where fornicators and rape victims are stoned to death.
> You therefore must either show
No. If you claim some wild supernatural explanation, the burden of proof is entirely on you.
jtoksa 3 years ago
This may surprise you, but I could be persuaded that people are communicating with aliens. I do not have an a priori position on this. There is no reason to assume that we are alone in this very big Universe, nor is there a theological problem with this. The Bible is completely silent on this point.
It is interesting that although you claim to be the open minded one, you are the one with the preconceptions.
SyLentze 3 years ago
> This may surprise you, but I could be
> persuaded that people are communicating
> with aliens
Actually this does not surprise me.
> you are the one
> with the preconceptions
I guess I am one sided because I am interested in the truth and want evidence.
If you have evidence of, for example Musikavanhu (insert any deity here), I am open to the possibility of Musikavanhu actually existing.
Until then Musikavanhu remains a figment of someone's vivid imagination as far as I am concerned.
jtoksa 3 years ago
You sputter and bluster about the triumph of "reason" and "science", yet you seem to not understand either. So far, you have been unable to summon either to your predicament.
You are like an apprentice witchdoctor: you know only partially the incantations of the arguments on your side and in your favor, but you know not the complexity of the spell nor what powers you must invoke.
First, bring forth your best argument, then we shall set about the business of determining how it has failed.
SyLentze 3 years ago
> You are like an apprentice witchdoctor: you
> know only partially the incantations of the
> arguments on your side and in your favor, but
> you know not the complexity of the spell nor
> what powers you must invoke.
Sorry, not my field.
Consult a theologian.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> bring forth your best argument
It is hard to choose the best argument against religion in general, or Christianity in particular, because there are so many.
The most fundamental argument is that there is no evidence whatsoever that would support the existence of any supernatural beings, except silly testimonial evidence.
Another one might be that in complete absence of evidence, anyone's god theory is just as good as anyone else's.
jtoksa 3 years ago
If you discount "testimonial" evidence of all kinds, then you must believe that all events that have happened outside of your sight or time are outside of consideration.
Is this your contention?
If so, is there any circumstance in which you could be persuaded via anothers experience?
If not, then you must take the position that all understanding or enlightenment must come from within.
Is this your contention?
SyLentze 3 years ago
> you must believe that all
> events that have happened outside of your
> sight or time are outside of consideration.
That's silly. Read my comment regarding source criticism below.
If a source contains some claims which could not possibly be true (Noah's flood, Jonah living inside a whale, talking snakes and donkeys, resurrections, tower of babel story, genesis etc) then according to the principles of source criticism one should be highly critical about everything else in that source also.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> you seem to not understand either
Empirical observable evidence is more trustworthy than wacky religious texts written by ancient ignorant people.
And empirical evidence tells us, among other things, that:
Voices inside somebody's head can have a perfectly natural neurological explanation.
Corpse don't walk, and donkeys and snakes don't talk, because they lack the equipment for that.
However all that really can happen! Not in the real world, but inside your own head.
jtoksa 3 years ago
Can you explain what it is about past writing that makes them "wacky" other than they disagree with your world view? Do you feel this way about all ancient writing or only that that you disagree with?
>voices... Yes that is one explanation. There are others. Your point?
>corpse... See my earlier explanation of "miracle"
>head... So it is your contention that the observed phenomenon were of a hallucinatory nature or are you sticking with your earlier position that is was all fiction?
SyLentze 3 years ago
> what it is about past writing that makes
> them "wacky"
Looks like you are new to source criticism.
Some considerations to evaluate the reliability of a source, are:
Author's credentials, education, affiliation? Reputable publisher?
Can the facts be checked? Are the hypotheses testable? What't the supporting evidence? Unreasonable assumptions? Is it up to date?
Does it radically differ with other experts in the field? Controversy among the critics? Emotional words or bias?
etc etc.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> So it is your contention that the observed
> phenomenon were of a hallucinatory nature
It is probably a mix of hearsay and stories of often actual events which were told from mouth to mouth before they were put on paper, and which were sexed up at every stage.
Jesus might very well have existed, he might even have had a "god complex", but the miracle stories are absurd.
Read about John Frum and see if you can spot any similarities between him and Jesus?
jtoksa 3 years ago
> corpse... See my earlier explanation of
> "miracle"
In complete absence of evidence, anyone's miracle is just as plausible as anyone else's.
Historian Tacitus wrote how Vespasian (the emperor) personally performed several supernatural healing miracles.
Hindus have statues of their many gods who, when offered milk in a spoon, make the milk magically disappear.
etc etc etc.
Naturally, these are all supported by solid, irrefutable testimonial evidence :-)
jtoksa 3 years ago
oh dear yet another semantics hiccup right after you mentioned one you said no evidence. Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
septigus3 3 years ago
Lennox made Dawkins look pathetic ha ha poor old dodering Dawkins!!!
septigus3 3 years ago
Hardly, all Lennox managed to do was show himself to be an opportunistic rhetorition. If Dawkins seemed off kilter, it was largely because the format of the "debate" was profoundly unfair to him.
nobagav 3 years ago
Total ownage by John Lennox :D
Sarn0 3 years ago
Good analysis. 5 stars
flayed2 3 years ago
Boo Hoo Dawkins lost!! what a whine.
sunergos7 3 years ago
you are right to say most people,not all,but most. I respect much more someone or even a scientist that lets say believes the bible but gives a very clear mathematical,biological or even cosmological explaination of how it happened. I found tho that in the debate (maybe you didnt think so) but lennox was much stronger with his counter arguments,humour etc.. i was really un-impressed with dawkins perfomance. I do however thi8nk he was much more dominant when he went against Alister Mcgrath.
warallied 3 years ago
I definitely saw the debate very different. Lennox only had the one good moment where he caught Dawkins in a semantics argument by applying two different definitions to "faith"...the only other reason that I would say his "counter arguments" would appear that way to you was because Dawkins WASN'T ALLOWED counter arguments!!!! He had to try and force them into his time on the next question...and he still crushed his claims.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Many people confuse God with religion. Religion is man made. Beliving in God(Jesus) is not a religion - God is Truth. Just as Dawkins would say aetheism is not a religion it is truth. Dawkins and Lennox really agree here it is just Dawkins puts God in the religion category. The comment on religion being bad doesn't apply to the true God because He wouldn't tell anyone to do something evil because He isn't evil He is good. Here again Lennox would agree with Dawkins on religion(man made).
googes1984 3 years ago
religion and truth have nothing to do with each other. Even if you take the position that the religion is "true"...it's still a religion. JUST believing that a god exists ISN'T enough to constitute a religion, but as soon as you call that god Yahweh and claim that he has a son Jesus who died on the cross etc....now you have a religion.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
to be honest,i didn't want to waste my time mentioning all of what you said but, just want to mention the part in which you accuse lennox of using a low blow on dawkins at the beginning.
The Arbiter-ref or whatever you what to call him said specifically to talk about themselves,what they think of of the debate and THE BOOK!.
Dawkins explained very well his life and from his age of 16 years old how he "realised" the truth and described creationism in his words. Lennox just did the same.
warallied 3 years ago
I entirely disagree. The opening statements were to be a BIOGRAPHY of each man and Dawkins did just that. Lennox spent all of his time countering Dawkins with no time for Dawkins to respond. It was dirty, and planned.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
as far as planning is concerned. Dawkins knew and accepted how the debate would be and discussed,he sure miscalculated how biased it could feel at one point but i say dont agree to something and complain about it later.
as a remark, even creationists admitted this was not a fair system but pointed out that it was changed during the course of it and that lennox was cut many times sue to the short time.
warallied 3 years ago
Dawkins clearly stated that he thought it was going to be more of an EXCHANGE which is NOT what it was. So you are completely wrong there.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
more of an exchange doesnt mean it wasnt an exchange at all. I wouldnt say completly wrong there either. Like i said, everybody un-baised enough would admit this was defenetly a biased debate in a setting that is correct in many other fashion and ways(like you tube etc..) but that isnt the fair way of making a debate. you dont need dawkins himself in those cases since its a talk TO the book rather than TO the person. still,he was told before and at the intro the way this would work. he agreed.
warallied 3 years ago
i specially re-watched the debate once i listen to your video and the REF specifficaly said that both men had to: talk about themselves,their path of life and what they think about the book.
Dawkins did that and had MANY strong comments about his realisation of the truth and creation itself.
Lennoz mention everything from his life in the Soviet-U, when he ran a radio station, his questionings and temporary atheism, about his studies and what seperated himself from dawkins
warallied 3 years ago
(which he said was defenetly not science)
(sorry for many posts,im limited in words)
anyway,he mentioned his whole lifetime,his childhood etc.. until he talked about the book,what he thought of what he believed was the real delusion of the book. I think you have a problem just to the fact that dawkins couldnt respond. which he could in the later debate point anyway.
warallied 3 years ago
Dawkins spoke and looked directly at the crowd...Lennox spoke nearly the ENTIRE TIME facing Dawkins. Say what you like, but the first part was just supposed to be an introduction...Lennox took the time to go on attack. I'll be glad to show you my program where it says that in case you didn't get one.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
i didnt see lennox`s eye twitching here, he faced the crowd as he faced dawkins several times,i dont see why it matters since his words and sounds cannot be directed to be heard only by specific people.Dawkins is a person that is introduced to aswell as Dawkins made a reference to northern ireland aswell. if you complain about the way those intro were directed or done,then complain to the ref. the rules were clear, themselves, path of life, thought about debate and book.
warallied 3 years ago
Oh, don't even get me started on the "mediator"...he sucked ass in both directions. Of course, what would you expect when the mediator is FROM the group supporting Lennox. Could they not find ANYONE that would at least appear to be impartial?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
agreed. but I apreciate dawkins facing the odds and accept a fight under the other camp`s term.
warallied 3 years ago
Well, to be honest, it's not hard to embarrass most people of faith because they claim such empirical knowledge while basing everything on the Bible without understanding true science. I'm sure Dawkins wasn't intimidated at all...though in general, he prefers to just avoid "creationists" because it's so pointless. Those people tend to just refuse to accept anything harder to understand than "god did it".
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Next time you go to a discussion with them try not to have such a narrow mind set that everything Lennox says is wrong and unrassional. please be more open minded, thats what he the least expects from you to understand what he means. Its also what God expects from you that you can be saved one day. Amen.
dealerovski82 3 years ago
LOL!!!! "unrassional"
You're doing your own side of the argument a disservice by speaking on their behalf with this butchery of the English language. The word you're looking for is "irrational."
wreckk21 3 years ago
whats your problem jerk ?
dealerovski82 3 years ago
How about the next time you watch one of my videos that YOU be more open-minded? Seeing how you can read my mind and all and make these assumptions and state them so well with your omniscience...tell me...what color underwear am I wearing?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
You wouldent believe even if someone came back from the dead, I know thats a fact.
dealerovski82 3 years ago
what evidence do you have for this "fact"?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Rational what is that? This is a honest question. Who decides what rational is? The masses? Science does not answer these questions for you. Do they?
yugihoo 3 years ago
Rationality is basically subjective.
The people who are deciding what rationality is (along with many other moral and social decisions), depends on the context.
Think about it.
Not too long ago, slavery was legal and socially acceptable, but today, if I were to say that my slave is making dinner tonight, you would think I would be joking (or out of my mind).
The same goes for rationality. It all depends on the social context.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I believe that there is an ultimate truth, that is not dependent on the social context.
Different societies and groups interpret this truth differently, but only the "true truth" will answer all of the given questions.
It's like a scientific theory. The one that answers the most questions is the one that is chosen. If there is something that directly contradicts the theory, it should be abandoned.
Of course, this doesn't happen, because we're still stuck with evolution and the big bang.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
John Lennox still uses the design argument
just goes to show u 3 doctorates aint everything
Orygyn 3 years ago 2
And may I ask what do you posses that makes you smarter than John Lennox? Seems like you know everything like KingHeathen here...
hyubgaek 3 years ago
when did i say that?
im just saying most atheists can refute the design argument with little to no effort
and me and king heathen can do that
i even have a video about it
im not arguing that John Lennox is stupid, that would just be insane, im saying that as 1 of the forerunners in the creationist mindset he still uses arguments that ur everyday atheist can disprove in seconds
doesnt mean anything about him just means creationists could try thinking elsewhere for once
Orygyn 3 years ago
First of all Orygyn your statement "goes to show u 3 doctorates aint everything " makes me think your smarter than him, however this is a ongoing comment situation, so I understand your true intent. I apologize if I affended you and jumped into conclusions, however when you say "refute design arguments with little to no effort" is not correct at all. You might think and say you are "disproving in seconds" but your actually stating what you think not actually disproving anything. Cont.
hyubgaek 3 years ago