Richard Dawkins What if you re wrong South Park

[Flipper79able]

The fun thing is Dawkins never even gets a challenge by these Christians. They can't watch his debates because they always ask the same dumb questions over and over again. I watch the things they say but the must not even bother because "He's Evil". I had the same question asked to me by a FOX loving Christian Conservative and I gave them the same answer Dawkins just gave and he was dumbfounded. The conversation was over that quickly and I could tell he wanted to say something but he couldn't.

[yolenin1]

in yo face bitch

[DonkeyDong156]

@JonJonesize Because sooner or later the people who believed in thor vanished. Why you might ask? well because that religon no longer appealed to that time period. Just like the muslim and judeo christian philosophy will no longer appeal to us in the future, the message about these religons in summary is equality for all, and treat others the way you would want to be treated. The point is we dont know the future, but im certain we will realize by then we dont need a book to know everyone is =

[DonkeyDong156]

in 1000 years we will all laugh at religion just like we laugh at thor because we realize how pathetic those people were so we laugh just like the futurew human race will laugh at us.

[KaylinJH]

@DonkeyDong156 sadly at the rate we are going we have no future

[DonkeyDong156]

@KaylinJH why will their be no future

[KaylinJH]

@DonkeyDong156 pollution over population mass extinction, take your pick

[wondergundy]

You can't just comment on Dawkins answer. Listen to the whole talk. you realize that the answer he gave just parroted what he had covered already. He meticulously states how his hypothesis is right. She then asks him What if he's wrong, He has to tell her again. There is no archaeological evidence that any oft the events in the bible story took place. There have been no Burning bushes, talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections. Lets move on.

[BigBrightBlueBox]

@Glovefullavasoline Touché. Although from my research I'd have to say that science seems to have proven, at least to some degree, that evolution is real. There is no evidence to suggest that we evolved from monkeys, no definite proof at least, but there is basic evidence to establish that evolution exists at least at a basic level. There is not a shred of evidence supporting the epic fantasy and psychotic delusion that is Christianity, or any religion for that matter.

[BigBrightBlueBox]

@Glovefullavasoline Alright, that's a good point. Sort of like our version of the Tooth Fairy so to speak. I see what you're suggesting, but isn't it at least a bit more credible than the personal God and sacrificial Jesus theory?

[BigBrightBlueBox]

@Glovefullavasoline Maybe, or maybe we (atheists) are just not sufficiently insane to believe in a magical being with infinite power and wisdom who created the earth, and hasn't bothered to show up since. I could go on and on by the way, I'm just tired tonight.

[topbluffa1]

his logic is flawed im from en gland and i was born a Christian but im now a Hindu.

WTF IM NOT FROM INDIA HOW DID THIS HAPPENNNNNNNNN

dumb ass.

[CrazyMunky84]

@topbluffa1 You are 1 in 1 000 000 though. You one individual experience does not void the billions across the world who are simply a certain religion because of where they are from. DUMBASS! P.S Hinduism is fucking stupid like all the other ones.

[badmanmick]

@CrazyMunky84 Im not really religious but Hinduism is really broad, I doubt it is fucking stupid like the rest of them, some of them are more stupid than the others.

[edard101]

@topbluffa1 your not born a christian, its about belief, you aren't born with belief and i hate when people say that

[topbluffa1]

@edard101

you know what i mean i was baptised.



[BigBrightBlueBox]

@edard101 You somehow were able to watch this and miss the point entirely. LMAO.

[edard101]

@BigBrightBlueBox no i get what the video is saying people are raised as something and often believe what they are raised to believe. but its just a personal aggrevation of mine when someone says they were born as whatever, cos you dont come out believing

[BigBrightBlueBox]

@edard101 99% of people believe what they were raised to believe. That is a fact. That's the point he was making, that you most likely only "believe" or "practice" whatever faith you do because of your parents, and where you were born. End of story. If not, then why don't more children of Christian parents come out Muslim??

[edard101]

@BigBrightBlueBox im not arguing that point whatsoever, i agree, im just saying your not born something, you are raised something.

[BigBrightBlueBox]

@edard101 Ok. I see your point. But still, the bigger argument here, that I think Dawkins makes rather eloquently, is that most folks don't really "choose" what religion they're going to be in even if they'd like to think otherwise. We all like to think of ourselves as independent-minded even though a relatively small number of us actually are. That's all I'm saying.

[edard101]

@BigBrightBlueBox And i totally agree :)

[BigBrightBlueBox]

@edard101 ok. good.

[Krshwunk]

Richard Dawkins was raised Christian ... but he's an atheist. Hmm. Kind of defeats his argument.

[SoleCitizen33]

@Krshwunk huh?

[Krshwunk]

@SoleCitizen33 Dawkins said that people belong to subscribe to certain beliefs merely because they were raised that way. However, he was raised Christian ... but definitely isn't Christian. Hmm.

Dawkins hasn't thought this puerile argument through very well, has he?

[gregrutz]

@Krshwunk His argument is religion is man made and they all suck.

[boosie007666]

Seeing as how Dawkins gave an answer which many don't understand, I'm going to give an easier answer.

If a god does exist it could be any out of the thousands of gods man has invented or maybe one that hasn't. This could mean a variety of things, depending on which religion happens to have got it right or if it is none of them at all.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 "If a god does exist it could be any out of the thousands of gods man has invented or maybe one that hasn't. This could mean a variety of things, depending on which religion happens to have got it right or if it is none of them at all."

Okay ... so what? I still don't understand Dawkins' point. And I don't think you do either. All you seemed to conclude was, "This could mean a variety of things" ... um, yeah, but that's not really helpful to showing what his point was.

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk The point was that if he is wrong, it's highly unlikely that it would mean an existing religion would be right, since they're obviously man made when taking only the sheer numbers into account. So if he is wrong and a god does exist, that doesn't mean that christianity or islam or any of the others is right. It just means a god exists that's unaffiliated to any of our invented religions.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 Ah. I see what he's saying.

However, that argument is terrible. Just because there may be many possible answers put forward does not make it more likely that none of those answers are correct. If I write a test that has a multiple choice question in which there are millions of choices for the answer ... that in no one means that it's likely that none of them are the right answer.

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk Sorry, it's hard to explain my meanings on so few characters. It's not that there's multiple answers making it seem less likely, it's that the answers given all share characteristics of one another and many human characteristics, making them seem more likely to be fictional. Basically, if one religion is thought to be fictional, it's likely that all the others who share the same fictional traits are too.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 "answers given all share characteristics of one another and many human characteristics." They share SOME characteristics, not all ... otherwise they would all be the same religion. Just like possible answers in a multiple choice question may all be similar to each other but not the same.

"if one religion is thought to be fictional, it's likely that all the others who share the same fictional traits are too." What fictional traits? How do you know their fictional?

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk I didn't say they shared all the characteristics, I said they all share characteristics of one another. As in you can link from one to another easily.

I know they're fictional because they've been proven otherwise. Traits such as the cosmology of some religions (in a tree, flat earth, etc) or creation of mankind (man created from dust or shaped/found in a stone).

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 "Traits such as the cosmology of some religions (in a tree, flat earth, etc) or creation of mankind (man created from dust or shaped/found in a stone)." Many of these religious images are not taken literally in many religions. They are merely meant to be allegories. So, disproving that such things never happened does not disprove the religion that uses them in some way.

Also, I'm quite sure that "man created from dust or shaped/found in a stone" has not been disproved.

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk Well it does disprove that the events given in those religions did occur. It just doesn't disprove what people will pretend it means, regardless of what it does actually say for their religion.

Man's creation has been disproved. We have evidence for man's evolution. Unless you count abiogenesis as the point at which life began slowly leading to man but that's just altering what a religion actually says to try to fit in with reality, no matter how loose it is.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 I don't know what you mean by "events given in those religions" ... once again, there are certain fictional events talked about in religious stories but it's not always a part of a religion that those fictional events actually occurred in history. So, nothing is being disproved about that religion.

"Man's creation has been disproved. We have evidence for man's evolution." Um, having evidence for something isn't a proof for that something.

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk An event such as 'Genesis' in the Bible is one of the foundations for that religion. If that is disproved, as it has been, then the credibility of that religion is gone, since it is likely that everything built upon it was based on the previous belief. So it does disprove the religious beliefs of certain Christians about Genesis being factually accurate.

Evidence is proof. They're one in the same.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 "So it does disprove the religious beliefs of certain Christians about Genesis being factually accurate." Yes, that's true for some Christian religions. Catholicism, however, for example (the largest Christian religion) has never declared that Genesis should be taken literally.

"Evidence is proof. They're one in the same." What? So, if there is any evidence that someone murdered someone, then it's proof that they did? Come on.

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk Yes, if there is evidence that a person has murdered someone then that is proof they murdered them. But if there is evidence that a person has been murdered with a knife but no evidence for who performed the act, then that is only proof that the victim was murdered with a knife, not proof of who killed them.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 "Yes, if there is evidence that a person has murdered someone then that is proof they murdered them." Nope. Every court system in history would disagree with you. Otherwise, trials would instantly be over at the first presentation of any evidence whatsoever. You see, there could be evidence that Bob murdered Bill but also evidence that Sam murdered Bill. It's up to judges and juries to determine what happened based on the different kinds of evidence. Evidence is not proof.

[boosie007666]

@Krshwunk No, the evidence wouldn't be that Sam had murdered Bill and Bob murdered Bill. There would be evidence that both were in the place of the murder. The evidence that Bob had the knife, Bob had blood stains on his clothes and that Sam was standing across the room is the proof that Bob did it not Bill. You're confusing evidence and proof with sentencing.

[Krshwunk]

@boosie007666 "You're confusing evidence and proof with sentencing." You're confusing evidence and proof. I'm distinguishing them. You're not.

Haven't you heard of weak evidence and strong evidence? Does this equate to a weak proof and a strong proof? A proof either proves things or not ... you can't have varying degrees of proving. You can certainly however have varying degrees of evidence because the two are different. Evidence SUGGESTS something to be the case ... a proof PROVES it.

[ashbash986]

Did Dawkins do the voice for this?

[hockey31ab1]

ha and thats the actual audio from when this happened

[MrJohnnyrace]

RELIGIONS = FAIRY TALES 

[slh950]

the Greeks were also Deists moron! They virtually invented Deism

[PlantaPress]

Such shocking generalisations from this guy, grrr!

[alternativebassist]

I like the bit when he completely dodged the question...and then made a semi-racist remark before generalizing in no uncertain terms :P

[pjtom]

@alternativebassist If by 'dodged the question' you mean 'pointed out that question is stupid', and by 'semi-racist' you mean 'statically verifiable', then yeh i liked it.

[alternativebassist]

@pjtom "statically verifiable"? I have to say if you want to string a load of words together and pretend they mean anything your going to have to do better than that. By semi-racism I mean just that.

[pjtom]

@alternativebassist You see, the generalizations he made about different religions belonging to different cultures is verifiable by statistics. He's not saying that everyone in the US will be brought up as a Christian, because thats obviously not true (something that is also statistically verifiable). The whole point of statistics is to use a sample to GENERALIZE about an entire population. What's racist, or even semi-racist about that?

[alternativebassist]

@pjtom apart from his remark about the "great juju up the mountain?" Oh because that's not racist or condescending in anyway. Nor does it not show his complete lack of understanding of other cultures and the philosophy of religion or his. Statistics has nothing to do with what he's saying. And if he's trying to make any half decent point about individuality or indeed cultural beliefs they reeeally shouldn't.

[pjtom]

@alternativebassist Well, given that he's saying people are often brought up in the same religion as their parents, community or whatever, statistics have absolutely everything to do with his argument - in fact his point would be worthless if it wasn't supported by statistical evidence.  So what if he makes up an imaginary religion to make this point? It's still true! He clearly thinks that all supernatural beliefs are stupid, regardless of whether they're mainstream, tribal or personal.

[alternativebassist]

@pjtom statistics would still not have a lot to do with his point, if it was a point. Merely saying that a person living in a certain place at a certain time would behave in a certain way isn't the most profound statement ever. Besides he's still generalising; living in ancient Greece did not necessarily mean believing in Zeus there's a lot more to any culture. Also by dismissing the whole cultural legacy of Africa with such a sweeping, and in many ways offensive, statement doesn't help his case

[pjtom]

@alternativebassist he's not saying that people would 'necessarily' belong to the religion of their culture, he's only saying that they would be more likely to, and there's a big difference. If the claim is not profound enough for you, it's only because the question is so stupid. Even if he IS generalizing, it doesn't change the fact that there no person belonging to a mainstream religion today has deduced that their religion is the right one by themselves - they have been socialized into it!

[alternativebassist]

@pjtom not really. He's saying if you were born somewhere you DO behave like this. At no point does he say you'd be LIKELY to do anything. All he's shown is a rather shaky grasp of history and complete lack of understanding of most cultures and humanity in general. To say that no person is religious because of what they have decided is incredibly stupid and not only completely overlooking multiculturalism but also making a statement that is pretty much the polar opposite from reality.

[pjtom]

@alternativebassist You're really going to interpret him literally? He obviously doesn't think everyone in the US is Christian etc... Also, I didn't say people can't DECIDE their religion themselves, I said they don't DEDUCE their own religion. If someone who had never heard of existing religions was told to work out the meaning of life or whatever, they wouldn't come up with Jesus, or Buddha or any existing religions. Therefore, people aren't born with a religion, they are brought up into it.

[alternativebassist]

@pjtom why shouldn't I take him literally? Its what he said...I could pretend he was saying something else but that would be silly! Its kinda like someone swapping two words that don't actually change anything about their point in anyway, well would you look at that(!) Deduce a religion? WTF are you talking about "I deduce this religion is Christianity" yeah well done inspector freaking clouseau. I still strongly suggest you get a better dictionary,

[alternativebassist]

@pjtom Not to mention that "deducing" is the whole point of religion. When one adopts a faith that is very much what one does. You UNDERSTAND what the religion you are entering is about and what it means. More importantly that is something you work out for yourself. I could be brought up in any religion I like but if I don't understand it then what's the point? The meaning of life? Well quite apart from the fact that buddha is pretty close you should really learn what religion is ACTUALLY about

[BreaksFast]

@alternativebassist hahaha, and what is the meaning of life? All relgious people seem to think they have the answer, yet it is purely a product of their imagination. I'll give you a tip: Your life has no objective meaning. It's a blank canvans, just waiting for you to create your own meaning.

What could be better than that? Also, "deducing" has nothing to do with religion. Religious people don't deduce anything, they simply FABRICATE explainations.

[alternativebassist]

@BreaksFast that is an opinion....an opinion which completely ignores the entire history of philosophy...I think I'll stick to that thank you very much

[SoleCitizen33]

@BreaksFast well said, you make a good point on the meaning of life.

[pickles4all]

Strong atheism = gnostic atheism

Still, the burden of proof is on the people who claim a god does exist.

You can say that there is no unicorn living under your bed, and you don't need to prove it. The onus would be on anything making a positive claim that there is.

[Indalja]

Lastly, the burden of proof is on atheists to prove there is no God simply because it is a basic and age old belief that there is one. For instance, it was believed that the solar system was geocentric for a long time. So for those who believed it wasn't, they had to prove it, not the other way around. And the only way to prove there is no God would be to show evidence with absolute certainty that there is none. This is impossible.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja The burden of proof has always been on the one making the claim. Pastuer claimed that injecting dead virus cells into the body can build an immunity, but he had to prove it before it became acceptable. Hubbard claimed humans were placed on Earth by the intergalactic warlord Xenu but he failed his burden of proof. You claim there is a god and it's the one from the bible, but without proof why should anyone believe that?

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda I may have to prove the God from the Bible, but not a god in general. Reason is because belief in a god predates belief in no god. So technically it is atheists who are making the claim and must prove that there is none. And even if atheism was the original belief, the fact is that the belief in a god or gods quickly became the popular belief in human history.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja I feel I'm debating a reasonable person so please don't think I'm not listening to your points, but... We can trace the origin of theological beliefs and the human race existed before them. Before monotheism was polytheism. Before polytheism was belief in spirits. Before written record... well, who knows?

I acknowledge the idea of one or more deities as a hypothesis, but any hypothesis requires coroborating evidence before being upgraded to a theory.

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda I agree. Though, it's hard to provide concrete, objective, physical evidence of a divine being, which is why many scientists say they have no answer for it. And I understand that. But then comes the question of should science HAVE to answer everything? If so, how would it account for the abstract, or untestable origins? Or morality and aesthetics?

But I do admit, scientifically, it wouldn't be a theory.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja My previous response was to your first response to my earlier response (if that makes any kind of sense), this is to your third response (my brain hurts!). "Should science HAVE to answer everything?" Maybe not, but I think they should keep trying.

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda Haha, agreed. Though I would say that if something is unscientific, it doesn't mean it is false.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja I agree, though, that being unscientific does not necessarily mean false. I'm not ashamed that I withhold my opinion on the existence of ghosts. It's not scientific, and the default position would be that they're not real, but their possibility intrigues me. I won't say other people should believe, but I like the idea. If a politician tried to make a law based on their belief in ghosts I would speak out against them because any such law would require reason and fact rather than belief.

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda Sure, I'm with you there.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja Also, if something can be considered true due to the majority of the population believing it, then why would anyone challenge the idea that the world was flat? Also you would be islamic as that religion boasts the largest population of followers. (I'm assuming you are christian due to your reference to Pascal.)

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda It isn't that the popular idea is true, but that because it is the popular idea, it would seem at least to me that less popular ideas would have to show proof that the popular idea is wrong, which would be to show evidence of the less popular idea's truth. For instance, the idea of a flat Earth was believed until someone proved it was false. Same with geocentric solar system. This would be the case for god/gods, which is the popular idea. However, (contd)

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda (contd) the same could be said of evolution. Though it hasn't been proven to be absolutely true, it is the popular belief. So in this case, it would be up to others with less popular beliefs to provide evidence against it. Now, in saying all of this, I actually think it's smart for both sides of any argument to reasonably "research" both ideas fairly, and not be so ignorant to think that either has all the right answers.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja Evolution has progressed from being a hypothesis to a theory. In scientific terms (I'm not pretending to be a scientist, just one who admires their methodology) this is a huge leap in credibility. While Darwin drew a reasonable hypothesis from the observable facts of the time, his idea has since been supported by a wealth of archeological and anthropological findings since then. More importantly, none of this new evidence has disproven his idea. Thus the theory status (there is no 100%)

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda And with the case of Evolution, it will probably always remain just a theory, unless a macro-evolutionary process is observed. For now, these evidences of fossil remains could easily be separate organisms with no evolutionary connection. Adaptation could be just that: adaptation. And natural selection could have no link to becoming a brand new species. The process from fish to human alone would be nothing short of miraculous. But anyway, scientifically, Evolution is (contd)

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja I respectfully disagree. The theory of evolution offers itself to testing and it has been thoroughly tested. After the mapping of genomes it has become apparent that we all share a commonality. It still remains possible that we are all separate lines, but that possibility is considered incredibly small given what we now know. On the other hand, what is there about a belief in a deity that can be tested? We can disprove parts of the various holy books because those are testable claims.

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda Well, commonality, at least to me, seems insignificant without observable proof of macro-evolution (actually observing evidence of moving from one species to another). Things could be coomon, yet wholely unconnected.

I also want to say that I don't entirely throw out evolution as a possibility. In my mind, God and science compliment, not contradict.

As for deities, belief would have to be subjectively tested, so scientific approaches wouldn't work. It would be up to (contd)

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda (contd) personal experience, which can't be objectively tested. Also testing holy scripture is difficult in that it is more a test of scriptural inerrancy rather than existence of a god.

But I do understand your point and I agree that scientifically, belief in a god can't be a scientific theory.

By the way, I'm going on vacation so I won't be able to respond for several days. I don't want you to think I am abandoning our discussion, haha.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja Enjoy your trip!

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda (contd) stronger. But when we think not just scientifically but also philosophically, ideas of God or any divine being is on equal footing, evidence-wise.

[Indalja]

Secondly, the question of "what if you're wrong" is admittedly a poor question for intellectual debate. But I will say that Dawkin's response of asking the same question is actually less powerful due to Pascal's Wager. If the theist is wrong, no big loss. If the atheist is wrong, huge loss.

[Indalja]

The JuJu, the Great Spirit, and whatever other gods people created in the past are simply examples of people trying to connect with something greater. A desire which God uses to reach them and can be proven through testimonies of converted Christians. Even in the Bible, the story of Abraham is an example of an idol worshipper who changed from his original thinking to reach a relationship with the one true God. Those who find God are those truly seeking him and not stopping at the idol or idea.

[zauii89]

religion sux!



[redteamdarkspear]

Haha oowwwned

[tintiringa]

Great! More!

[whessly]

fair enough, dawkins is a bit of a cock.

[divedivedive]

cute.

[cnavaro88]

What episode is that from?

[larsgobbens]

wtf religion is not about the existence of god, it's about the improvement of the values of society... i don't understand people still take the bible literally, most christians i know see what it tries to do and see it more as cultural and an example than a "holy book"

[loudman12]

@larsgobbens i find your comment very strange as the bible is the word of god that those of that faith must abide by. It does not state in there about helping society, i take it you have only read the good parts ???

[larsgobbens]

@loudman12 that's what people turned it into yes (: jesus was actually the first person who wanted to fight the romans in a peaceful way, the "messias" before him tried to use force and they failed...then the struggles between christians and jews alrdy started...but anyway what i'm trying to say is that jesus never walked on water and he never turned water into wine, they made him "the son of god" because he was like gandhi in his time. and the 10 commandments...isnt that helping society?

[loudman12]

@larsgobbens no it doesnt the 10 commandments are not relevant to today's society. the first 4 commandments are self redundant as its based around a jelous god. Why is there no anti- rape commmandment or slavery etc.... Society has evolved over the years and will continue to do so with or without the bible. things that were the norm in the past and allowed by religion are not tolerated to day and that will continue. I have respect for believers if they want to believe then great its only my view

[Addy4473]

@loudman12 Adultery is an anti-rape commandment, bud. It applies to any sexual activity outside of marriage. So. But anyways, there are laws in the Old Testament that protect servants. But you can't assert that society will continue the way it has, or that the world will continue the way it has. The burden of proof lies on atheism to ensure that there are no higher authorities or a higher authority, and time and time again, they have failed to successfully refute the Christian argument. But

[loudman12]

@Addy4473 Judges 21:10-24 NLT) Numbers 31:7-18 NLT. Deuteronomy 20:10-14. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB. these are are all about rape. Funny that, there is a anti rape commandment yet stories of rape in the bible ummmm. Also didnt god techically break the 9th commandment " Though shall not covert thy neighbours wife??? he got marry pregnant who was married thus breaking his own commandment

[Addy4473]

@loudman12 The verses you quoted, when taken out of context, does make God seem malicious and malevolent (spelling?) But when you read these verses in context, the verses are meant for those that commit idoltary, adultery, and various other evils. Sin is not taken lightly from God; the sins were dealt with swiftly and rightfully so. The story in Jugdes only shows how evil the Israelites had become; God did not condone their actions in that passage. God didn't break the 9th commandment, because

[loudman12]

@Addy4473 he inpregnated a married woman which breaks the commandment full stop no if's or but's it does.

[loudman12]

@Addy4473 Ah the old "TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT" in other words christian talk for i can not defend them so I use the well you didnt read them right line. I read it and take it for what it says, Can I ask you a question do you like shellfish???? because in the new testiment where it talks about homersexuals being bad, in the same chapter it states that you can not eat shell fish. Also you did not refute the other passages i stated ?????

[Addy4473]

@loudman12 He did not covet after Mary; He simply chose marry to bear His Son through the Holy Spirit. He did not have sex with her; He used a far more fantastic method to bring His Son into the world. He did not desire to have Mary as a wife, He merely wanted to use her for the arrival of Jesus. :) There you go. God is a just and loving God, but remember, He IS just, and does not handle sin lightly. God bless you!

[loudman12]

@larsgobbens No i affriad it does not cause millions of people have died over this question. A religion that brings death is not a good thing for society

[larsgobbens]

@loudman12 because religion was a tool....compare christians and muslims to buddhists and aboriginals and you'll see

[Addy4473]

@larsgobbens Jesus is the Son of God. He declared Himself the Son of God because He is rightfully so, and I believe the empty tomb is good evidence that He is the divine Son of God! :) God bless you!

[larsgobbens]

@Addy4473 actually he never declared to be the son of god, he just fought the romans in a peaceful way, that's why he got so many followers..

[Addy4473]

@larsgobbens He did proclaim to be the Son of God.

"Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58

This is probably the most powerful statement in the Bible (or one of the most powerful statements) and the most obvious proclamation of Jesus being the divine Son of God.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; nobody comes to the Father except by Me." John 14:6

This indicates that Jesus is the only way to the Father, being that Jesus died

[Addy4473]

@larsgobbens for our sins, being the Lamb of God because not only was He perfect, but He was fully man and fully God.

"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

This is one of many prophecies regarding the Messiah, Jesus Christ. :) So

There ya go, friend. God bless you :)

Oh btw, He fought the romans in a peaceful way?

[Addy4473]

@larsgobbens He was crucified by the Jewish Sanhedrin for His proclamations for being the divine Son of God. The Romans merely allowed the execution to take place. Ultimately, God the Father crucified His Son for the sins of the world.

[loudman12]

@Addy4473 Which gospel you refering to the one where the romans found an empty tomb, or the woman???? which one you refering to. Condridiction there which one do you follow

[Indalja]

@loudman12 Even my skeptic college professor (when I took Bible as Literature) agreed that this is not a contradiction. The four gospels were written by four separate people with four separate perspectives. Some could be wrong. The truth is the event being told by all four, not the details. I forgot the term used to decribe this, but even today it can be proven that witness testimony will always differ on the details. Does not mean the general event didn't take place.

[AkrayBothorda]

@Indalja What if the Abrahamic God was a device of the Great Ju Ju to bring the people to him?

Those who perscribe to Pascal's wager (and this does not include Pascal) are missing the premise that the god of the bible will know if you are sincere. If you believe simply to cover yourself in case the bible is true then would not God realise this, or can he be fooled?

[Indalja]

@AkrayBothorda I agree with you. I would say my point was to show how more ridiculous it is for the atheist to use this argument against a sincere believer. I, however, as I've already mentioned, don't think this is a great argument for intellectual debate.

[MillCityPersons]

This was done very well. Pretty damn convincing too (that it was from South Park, and I've seen the original video too.)

[NewtonsStudent]

how'd you do this?

[billybobthortansbro]

wtf is this south park *explodes* LOLEO@K@!OLK#

[LordEmilous]

hahha lol xD

[mgangsta112]

Thank You All viewers for 1k vieuws! and sure u get more vieuwers for this video and subrcibe for more videos ;)

[xAllHallows777x]

Atheists testify against themselves by trying to prove that God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, why are you trying (with no avail) to prove Him wrong? I don't believe in the easter bunny, so I don't try to prove that it doesn't exist. Dawkins knows God exists. He's just trying to convince himself so bad that He doesn't.

[Eikus89]

@xAllHallows777x Atheists proves that God does not exist because of ignorant people like you, who tries to make your value judgement universal by saying such moronic things like "my opponents agree with me, but they just don't understand it." Another reason atheists argue that God does not exist is because religious people are responsible for a large portion of the misery in the world. Do I need to remind you of 9/11? The KKK? The pope's boycott of condoms?

[xxMustardTigerxx]

@xAllHallows777x people dont kill each other en mass and prevent the advancement of science over the easter bunny. That's the only reason why people try to disprove the belief in god because it fucks up the world

[dickdijkman]

@xAllHallows777x So if three quarters of the people you know believed in the easter bunny, you wouldn't try to convince them that is doesn't exist? For if you did you would testify against yourself and actually believe in the easter bunny. According to your reasoning...

[bersa888]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Chr1551]

i don't understand what the point was in making this into a cartoon.

[nidodson]

btw, I really liked seeing this South Park style, hope to see a lot more.

[Shino686]

oh my

[inviktus1983]

lol, pwned.

[MajrMovieMadnes]

That doesn't prove that god isn't real it's ignoring the question and just slamming something else in our face. Most questions us christians ask athiest area avoided with a statement. It is quite annoying

[shadowtehpwnzor]

@MajrMovieMadnes He answered it very well, and you can't god is not real just fairies and unicorns you superstitious moron.

[shadowtehpwnzor]

@MajrMovieMadnes He answered it very well, and you can't god is not real just fairies and unicorns you superstitious moron.

[boomandslambucket]

@MajrMovieMadnes the onus isn't on atheists to prove there is no god..

[Kravis63]

@boomandslambucket No it is not. The Atheist are not claiming that something exist, so they have nothing to prove. The onus is on the theist to prove what they believe in exists.

Atheism is not a belief, just like not collecting trading cards is not a hobby.

[LampPlaceThing]

@boomandslambucket Since the majority of the planet is Theistic in the BILLIONS... the "onus" is on you to "prove there is no god."

[henkvanderlaak]

@LampPlaceThing

If your 'god' is a real thing, may it strike me down right NOW!

See, nothing happened. Proof provided. Easy peasy.

[LampPlaceThing]

@henkvanderlaak did you ever read... say the Bible? It is FULL of that kind of questioning.

Psalms (one of many) 1 How long, LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?

2 How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and day after day have sorrow in my heart? How long will my enemy triumph over me?

Many times the people and prophets who did many great and powerful (magical) things, have realistically felt a kind of separation from God, so they "cry out"

[MeetYourMeaker]

@boomandslambucket

You have failed to provide proof and evidence that naturalistic religion of atheismsimsimsims is accurate and correct.

[dknightish]

@boomandslambucket - actually the burden of proof does fall on atheists because they implicitly state that NO god exists, just as it applies to religious folk who claim God DOES exists. Only agnostics have no burden of proof.

[dknightish]

@pickles4all - I know atheism does not imply a denial or rejection or active disbelief in the possibility of a god. I was referring to positive atheists or strong atheists who explicitly affirm that Gods DO NOT exist.

[isak69]

@dknightish EHH??? Burden of proof is always on beleivers. Always!

[PlantaPress]

@dknightish

Amen! (sic!) Hence why I am Agnostic ;) xx

[PlantaPress]

@boomandslambucket

Yes it is! Because you are making an assertion that you believe is based in fact. So you must back it up, as much as religious people assert that there IS a god/higher power. Hardly a giant leap of logic to work that one out is it??!!

[alternativebassist]

@boomandslambucket really? Then why do they insist on trying to do so????

[boomandslambucket]

@MajrMovieMadnes

[holio84]

@MajrMovieMadnes All I can say is -  you dumbass, your stupidity is annoying.

[pimpwacker]

@MajrMovieMadnes- actualy it does answer the question. The question was basicaly a version of pascal's wager (look it up). Dawkins answered the question by pointing out that it actualy applies to Christians more than athiests. He has essentialy told her that you may as well not believe in any god (even if one was real) because there are so many possibilities that you are most likely going to get it wrong anyway.

I agree, it doesnt disprove god; It simply justifies not believing in God.

[nidodson]

@MajrMovieMadnes Disprove that there is an invisible monkey that only I can see and interact with. Most questions you Christians ask Atheists are so null of reality, that they are not worth responding to. You make extreme special exceptions for your own beliefs.

It is more disgusting when you guys criticize other beliefs in ways you refuse to look at your own. Dawkin's point is valid, look at your own beliefs as you would someone else's, without special exceptions.

[zurealguy]

uhhh why?

[hellsspike]

haha , he destroyed that little cunt bitch, thinking she was cute with that question, fucking little christian whore

[pimpwacker]

@hellsspike - woah there turbo, take a chill pill (in reference to calling the question asker a 'little christian whore). Her highlighting that it was 'simple' probably meant that she anticipated his tearing it to shreds. there is no reason to supose that she is even a Christian. :)

[Ilikelink]

what's the point of this?

[mrx0066600]

this is great