The Unraveling of Christianity (Richard Dawkins)

[De5O54]

Your 'unraveling' is unravelling. 'A clear explanation'?! Thats not evidence and there are 2 Ls in 'unravelling'. There are 2 Ls in 'fool'. No wait, only one :- |

It might be that you're one of those who haven't read the bible - the main reference source of christianity - && are quoting some who may've read bits. That is a poor service even to stupidity. Certainly to ignorance.

You do not appear to be given to 'logical sense'.

"Hitchslap" :- | You are a people worshipper, && Hitchens is dead.

[BloodOfRayne]

so?

Man rejected God and became a slave unto himself, therefore rejecting God and making laws unto himself! What's your point?

[BloodOfRayne]

@BloodOfRayne It was free will

[BloodOfRayne]

@BloodOfRayne That's what he wanted, he rejected God's law... and so...?

[BloodOfRayne]

@BloodOfRayne The Bible is set laws... not that man HAS to follow them! So here we are!

[BloodOfRayne]

And? these were punishments set upon man for rejecting the true God!

[BloodOfRayne]

Richard is already dead! He wants to push us all into an unfeeling world without any compassion and just the reason of "science" and then tell us that there is a "spiritual meaning" when he himself, has NO spirit! He reminds me of Nietzsche's philosopher who was blind but held out an unlit lamp before him! Saying, without God only a blind man can show the way into darkness!

[BloodOfRayne]

Richard.... Jesus died for us because he was willing to give us the free will to love him freely! The same free will that allows you to be so blind to this obvious fact! The same free will that you use to think that you ultimately have no real purpose and to be a rationalist who rationally believes that all of this ultimately means nothing. This is the ultimate end beyond your feeble knowledge... in the end there is only two kinds of people... those who see... and those who don't

[usukatlifegodiekthx]

@BloodOfRayne I like how at no point you refute how stupid the whole concept of a god killing himself for free will sounds. Also Dawkins is a renowned scientists Craig is not. It's like Hawkins debating a preacher you can't use facts and science on people who don't understand them.

[BloodOfRayne]

@usukatlifegodiekthx I'm not even going to try to explain why Christ "died" for because you are obviously too stupid to realize that a spiritual being can't spiritually die, only pysically! He did it to show us that he loves us so much that he was willing to die a torturous physical death as we can't experience to save us from ourselves! This is what a true God of love would do! No cowardice, just love! Unfortunately you can't see with you heart, only your blind eyes!

[usukatlifegodiekthx]

@BloodOfRayne So a god of love tortures and sacrifices himself? Sounds like a person in an abusive relationship. "If you don't love me I will kill myself!" Why does a god of love just not torture anybody? I mean if you want to live your life using only your emotions as your guide "see with you heart".  That's fine I need somebody to pick up my trash.

[BloodOfRayne]

@usukatlifegodiekthx The funny thing is, if he hadn't done it and left us to rot you'd be saying: so this loving God who created us just left us to rot? He just can't win with you can he? If he dies for you, you say it's some sort of masochistic action, but if he hadn't you'd be calling him a sadist! What you don't seem to understand is that the reason he suffered for us is because love can only be if there is a choice to reject that love! We did.. he suffered for it for us!

[usukatlifegodiekthx]

@BloodOfRayne Reject my love and I will burn you forever. Sounds like a loving god?

[BloodOfRayne]

@usukatlifegodiekthx That would makes sense if it wasn't for the fact that you chose to offend God in everyway possible. If I say to you that homosexuality is wrong, you will say it's not even though it's obviosly against God's design! Ever if you don't believe in God, it's still against nature's design! Dick in arse is normal? really? Why not just fuck a goat then? because it's taboo and against humity? Who's makin' the rules here? You? or them? Who is them?

[usukatlifegodiekthx]

@BloodOfRayne So god's plan is to burn men in hell for having sex with another man? Sounds like a pretty petty god. So you want to follow the rules of the bible? So slavery should be legal, if a man rapes a woman he must marry the woman and pay the father. You stone misbehaving children. Awesome!

[BloodOfRayne]

@usukatlifegodiekthx Men fucking each other in the shit shoot which ain't only against God but against natures plan? Aye, I'm against it... Slavery was volantary in the Bible as in servants, or a criminals' punishment instead of years of incarceration... yep, sounds better to me... if a man raped a woman then either he married her and she inherited half his kingdon or paid the father half his kingdon... again, sounds good to me! today when women get raped, they get nothing!

[BloodOfRayne]

@BloodOfRayne You've obviously never read the Bible have you?

[usukatlifegodiekthx]

@BloodOfRayne No the bible clearly says that you may sell your children as slaves and buy other peoples children as slave. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:7-11. Also you may beat your slave, they aren't servants. Exodus 21:20-21. You clearly haven't even read your holy book. So a woman has to live with her rapist? Today she could only have him put in jail and then sue in civil court to take more then half his kingdom (which that part isn't in the bible).

[BloodOfRayne]

@usukatlifegodiekthx Pigeon picking helps no-one! Put those in the context of the whole... this hunt and peck is old and lost.

[usukatlifegodiekthx]

@BloodOfRayne Pigeon picking? It clearly says that you can buy children. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land." I can't quote the whole bible so if you want the context look it up.

[BloodOfRayne]

@usukatlifegodiekthx What's your point?



[BloodOfRayne]

I LOVE how Dawkins says "I have no problem with anything anyone believes as long as they don't indoctrinate their children," then he proceeds to mock and attack any belief that anyone has! For someone who is so obsessed with evolution it's about this old man evovled some balls and actually stuck to his principles! If he hates religion then don't stop at children, take it full on and tell us what you really think like, take on William Lane Criag? Oh... I forget... you don't debate smart people.

[eventhisidistaken]

@53dumey Were you talking to me, or to the small brained gerbil up your ass?

[sinner12887]

I'am surpised Richard Dawkins didn't right his book in cayon. And call it theist drool athiest rule.He's just doing what crooked preachers do.Tell you that the other side is evil and immoral.I'am sick of all these fuck people atheist or theist who think they have the right to tell you that there better than you.

[bazblackadder]

" Barking Mad " - An very apt way to describe the story of the crucifixion. God sends himself to be sacrificed as an appeasement to himself, when if he was as omnipotent as he was alleged to be, he had the power to forgive mankind without going to all that effort.

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@bekinat0rr

"God had to come in the form of man in order to fulfill His demands of perfection and to be sacrificed for the attonment of the rest of us"

Atonement? To whom were we atoned? If God is the highest judge, and omnipotent, it would be within his power to just forgive... but instead, he decided to have himself sacrificed first?

"He demands perfection. Since man since Adam could can not achieve this"

Need I remind you that God is omnipotent, and could fix this with the wave of a hand?

[StargazingForJesus]

May I say that Dawkins does not discuss the issue of mortal sin and its consequences. Jesus died because of LOVE! His LOVE for us as His children. He did not want to see us destroyed- He wanted to give US ALL a second chance at life and eternal life. Can any atheist understand this concept of LOVE? IF you ever had the opportunity to die in the place of a wayward family member, would you? To give them another chance at life? Of course you would! Dawkins does not discuss this. That all.

[bazblackadder]

@StargazingForJesus "Can any atheist understand this concept of LOVE?" No we can't. We have no emotions at all! Could you describe it for us? Whilst you're at it, as We don't think there's Hell either, we don't know/feel or understand fear, so could you describe that for us? It would really help us emotionless unfeeling non-believers if you could.

[mickmon]

Absolute genius, love this guy!

[baimeng1]

Atheists are funny.

[Gaius8666a]

It's a good thing Richard Dawkins knows more about biology than he does theology or philosophy. His objection to religion is one that people who are ignorant of the subject make. He has a very shallow understanding of philosophy and should not speak on matters he does not know about.

[BL0WY0URMIND]

@Gaius8666a I agree. Philosophers like Bertrand Russell were far more intellectually sound in their arguments.

[slr1238]

dawkins needs a brain transplant

[Arcexey]

@darthelghastN7 Welcome to the world of the real.

[lightandbeautiful]

Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.

A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.

Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.

[some1udontknow84]

@darthelghastN7 as do anyone who believes in any delusion

[DawnOfTheDead991]

Good point by Dawkins about how "god" redeemed us by getting "himself", his son, whatever killed, which put a curse on the Jews for 2000 years because of that.

[FreelancerZENA]

If there was a fountain of youth that would grant one human in the world immortality, I'd elect Richard Dawkins to receive that for being a bau5.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

If Creation is only symbolic then its not an explanation of the natural. If it is literal is not symbolic and we are left with evolution as the best explanation since the inbreeding after the Noahcian flood is not observed in modern species. Sarah Palin calls aesthetic appreciation and pattern recognition "God's hand" or perhaps she is hallucinating. Her grip on language and reality demonstrably unreliable.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@darthelghastN7 35% no faith in New Zealand, 16%-20% unaffiliated in USA ggl "religious identification".

[53dumey]

Dawkins should talk about something he knows, like Biology and leave religion to Theologians.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@53dumey Are you really an intellectually inflexible zealot or do you just like to pretend to be one? Richard is after all allowed his opinion and freedom to express it. If you'd like to avoid the inconvenience of free speech, I hear the weather in North Korea is good this time of year.

[53dumey]

@EmmittBrownBTTF1

Just making a statement on how little he does know about religion. If you don't believe me, watch some you tubes on how experts give him a thumbs down. Or, you could read the "Dawkins Delusion "

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@53dumey One does not need to understand the piranha anatomy/physiology/psychology to know it is a bad idea to get into the water them. Just as RD doesn't need a complete understand theological subtleties to make his argument. Parts of Paul's world view are more in-line with right wing conservatism & extremism than liberalism. Paul says do not ignore the old testament which includes Hosea 13:16 advocating genocide.

[53dumey]

@EmmittBrownBTTF1

One does'nt need to have a Degree in Biology to understand that invertabres do not turn into vertabres.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@53dumey No intelligent well educated person would reasonable assert "invertabrates turn into vertabrates".

Changes in genetic code ever many generations lead to divergent species of Crantia - some vertebrates some invertebrates..

google evolutionary tree vertabrates site:macalester.edu

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey "One does'nt need to have a Degree in Biology to understand that invertabres do not turn into vertabres."

You might need a degree in biology to understand exactly how speciation can cause changes MUCH more vast than whether or not an animal is an invertabrate, or not, though, if you're at all interested in the actual facts, and not just your own favourite dogma.

How can you have even listened to this video, and be defending religion? God sacrified himself to himself! It's nonsensical!

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

" " God sacrified himself to himself! It's nonsensical! " "

Which is why I don't debate the Bible with atheists, they have so much wrong but insist that they are right !

For anyone to rant against their Non-Belief is nonsensical.

Its like me ranting against the flying tea pot !

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey "they have so much wrong but insist that they are right !" Prove me wrong.

Who holds us accountable for our sins? Who was Jesus the son of? Who's forgiveness do we need?

The answer to all of those questions is God. Why didn't he just forgive us, then? Why did he have to send his own son to die, in order to forgive us for a crime he was holding us accountable for?

If you stole from me, what sense would it make for me to wound myself, and then say "There, I forgive you."

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

If there is No God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell as you propose, then Why would I need your forgivness ?

Would'nt I just steal from you without any regret or Guilt ?

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey "Would'nt I just steal from you without any regret or Guilt ?"

Not unless you're a sociopath. That's what its called when people can commit crimes without regret or guilt. The rest of us still feel regret and guilt through empathy. We want the forgiveness of others so we stop worrying about their wounded feelings.

If I steal, I think "I just damaged the livelyhood of someone probably a lot like me." then, I imagine how I'd feel. Then I feel guilty for it. It's just natural empathy.

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

Feelings of Guilt, Regret and the need for forgivness ARE the basic foundations of Religion.

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey "Feelings of Guilt, Regret and the need for forgivness ARE the basic foundations of Religion."

Then you're saying guilt, regret and the need for forgiveness all preceded religion, and therefore, were not provided by religion?

The connection between morality and religion is imagined. Morality existed before, and exists in places untouched by religion. Animals even show degrees of morality. Even the most Godless of us have morality, with the exception of sociopaths.

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

Morality began with Moses and the 10 Commandments !

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey Obviously not, as civilisations that pre-date the ten commandments had morality.

Also, the ten commandments do not mention slavery, and yet that is immoral. It makes no mention of torture, which is immoral. It makes no mention of sexism, nor homophobia, racism or any kind of discrimination. They're all immoral. And we only decided they were immoral recently, without the help of any divine beings or prophets

If anything, the Bible condoned slavery, sexism and torture, have you read it?

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

I have read the New Testament ( Catholic ).

As for morality, no civilizations without religion have ever been shown to exist.

And Yes, Religion is the the source of our Morality.

If you can prove otherwise, please do !

Did you know that the Ancient Greeks and Romans had Slaves ?

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey

"Did you know that the Ancient Greeks and Romans had Slaves ?"

Did you know the Bible encouraged slavery? Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters, and claiming God provided instruction on the beating of slaves?

"If you can prove otherwise, please do"

The morality which prevents slavery is new. As is the morality against animal cruelty, against homophobia, against racism and against capital punishment. All new, and all with no basis in religion.

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

Slavery 2000 years ago was different than Slavery in the U.S. South ! You can check this at Biblefacts.

Have you noticed that the more secular this country becomes the worse the morality is.

Pornography

Abortion

Gay Marriage

All sanctaned by the government !

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@53dumey "Have you noticed that the more secular this country becomes the worse the morality is.

Pornography

Abortion

Gay Marriage"

Porn and abortion aside, as they're debatable...

I can't believe you just went there. Gay marriage isn't immoral. Homophobia is what's immoral. The ignorant belief that two people can't be in love with one another just because they're the same gender. This is what's wrong with Biblical morals.. you keep the bronze age prejudices and superstitions.

[53dumey]

@ScabeiathraxUK

I'll keep the Superstitions, You try to get a kid from two guys, and we'll see who wins !!!

[jimbeen1771]

@53dumey fucking retard

[53dumey]

@jimbeen1771

Insults are easy, debating is a bit harder !

FOOL !

[jimbeen1771]

@53dumey that's why you stopped doing it? just get the fuck off of planet earth you brain dead prick

[53dumey]

@jimbeen1771

Well, are'nt we an angry little Faggot ?

So, were am I wrong ?

[jimbeen1771]

@53dumey it would take me too long and it wouldn't change your view of things so why don't you ask that question to google and then do some research and apologize. and you look like a complete moron by criticizing my anger and adding, "little Faggot." at the end. just sad

[SeedsOfHatred]

@53dumey Well there's always adoption. Two gay men choosing to take in and care for a child from a poor or war-torn country; thus providing him with a loving home and education he may have not recieved otherwise. Some might consider that not only moral, but noble as well.

But even without that, you mention kids as though having children is THE most important thing. For the survival of our species, sure, but you act as though two men not being able to concieve is a horrible thing. How so?

[53dumey]

@SeedsOfHatred

But two men Can't concieve, which is why Gay Marriage is lame and unproductive to society.

But Dawkins with his Vast knowledge of Biology thinks Gay Marriage and Abortion are fine, just not Religion.

Which is why I question his morality !

[SeedsOfHatred]

@53dumey Again, I ask; why is it so important to concieve? There are many more straights than there are gays. This planet will likely never NOT be infested with human beings. I don't think gays are doing much to detriment us.

As for it being unproductive; so is alcohol. It rarely does anything of positive value (and even manages to kill on occasion), and yet your Jesus made sure everyone at the wedding was hammered by turning water into it.

Many things in this world are unproductive. And yet,

[SeedsOfHatred]

@53dumey (cont.) they remain part of the fabric of our society.

Gays can have feelings of love for whomever they wish. It makes them happy and they're not hurting anyone by doing it. It only becomes a problem when meddling Christians decide to stick their nose into matters which aren't of any concern to them to begin with.

[53dumey]

@SeedsOfHatred

I was'nt speaking of Homosexuality as a whole, just the activists who believe they should have the "Right" to get Married when marriage is a privilege not a right !

And its not just Christians who are against Gay Marriage.

Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus and non-believers are also against it.

Though you do have angry atheists, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, most of Hollywood and Lady GaGa on your side !

[DawnOfTheDead991]

@53dumey While the regressives who are against gay marriage are such loving people, like the Westboro crowd?

[SeedsOfHatred]

@53dumey I'm aware that many are against it. But you are a Christian, so I am speaking about YOU.

And no, marriage is not a privilege. Two consenting adults have a right to be with whomever they wish. They have a right to be with whomever makes them happy. Who are you to say otherwise? What puts you on the pedestal of authority to tell them who they can and can't marry?

[53dumey]

@SeedsOfHatred

What puts You or the Gays on a pedestal, to demand gay marriage as a Right when its not in the Bill of Rights ?

[SeedsOfHatred]

@53dumey You cannot answer my question with another question. That is evading my inquiry and does nothing to make your point.

In any case, the Bill of Rights is not some magic text. It is a list of man-made "rights" for the United States. It is not a list of Human rights. There are many rights which are not listed in the Bill of Rights. Humans are allowed to love and be with whomever they wish. You are in no position to say otherwise.

[Arcexey]

@53dumey .......... Do you even know what the Bill of Rights is?

[53dumey]

@Arcexey

Yes I do, can you show me where I'm wrong ???

[Arcexey]

@53dumey Several people already did, but sure. Most of our "rights" aren't even on the BoR, for example the abolition of slavery - something that wasn't dreamed up until it became an issue (like gay marriage). The fact that man-woman marriage ISN'T on the BoR is actually in favor of gays. Gays don't want a pedestal, they want to be on the same level as other human beings. Currently heteros are on the "pedestal," and gays want to join them. Also notice women's suffrage is not on the BoR. It came

[Arcexey]

@53dumey about when it became an issue when our civilization became -gasp- more civil. When we decided.. hey.. woman are a part of this world, why can't they vote? They are capable, they're a part of society, and it's right. This is the trend, and gay marriage is next. Anyway, as I said, there's no reason gay marriage would be expected to be on the BoR. Someone who would say that does not know what the BoR is.

[53dumey]

@Arcexey

We have women voters, Civil rights for Blacks etc...........

Should we also allow polygamy, incsetial marriage or even beastiality ?

Because thats where we are headed !

A young Girl who has her period is Biologically capable of having a Child, yet we don't allow them to get married, why should we allow Buttfuckers too ??????

[Arcexey]

@53dumey I don't agree that we are headed towards bestiality, and I say that is an entirely separate issue. We are talking inter-species marriage, be it guy-girl or girl-girl or guy-guy. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with polygamy or incest - as long as both parties are 100% WILLING. As it pertains to polygamy, usually the women are involved in the activity because they don't know any better and are victims. If love manifests itself between a brother and sister I say who am

[Arcexey]

@53dumey to tell them they cannot marry. For them to procreate is quite a different argument, as its been shown that birth effects derive from inter-family sex.

This next part shows lavishly shows your bigotry. I'll try to be very clear:

1.) Not all gays engage in anal sex.

2.) Many, many heterosexual relationships engage in anal sex.

3.) The US does not allow marriage before a certain age because society has dictated that someone that age is not capable of making

[Arcexey]

@53dumey certain life-altering decisions. To compare a minor to an adult who is capable of understanding his decisions is ridiculous.

Now I'll ask you a question: How is gays being allowed to marry hurting you?

Why do you care whether they marry or not?

[53dumey]

@Arcexey

I'm concerned for the direction of Morality in this Country.

ITs headed for the Sewer with Gay marriage, Pornography and unneeded Abortion !

You really can't see anything Wrong with Gay Sex ? Are your eyes THAT closed ???

[Arcexey]

@53dumey Look.. instead of just saying 'can't you see what's wrong?' Tell me what's wrong! Tell me why gay sex and gay marriage and gay love is wrong. Tell me why two people that love each - whether they are both guys, both girls, or a guy and a girl is 'wrong.'

And, even if you think it's wrong, why does that mean it should not still be allowed?

I hate anime. I think it's wrong and stupid and annoying and boring as fuck. But I would never say people shouldn't be allowed to watch pokemon.

[Arcexey]

@53dumey I think Clint Eastwood said it rather well, in a recent issue of GQ magazine, with his remark: "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else. ..... They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity.' Don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

[53dumey]

@Arcexey

Eastwood has got Old and Liberal !!!

Hollywood has Fucked with his head !

[Arcexey]

@53dumey Also.. I wasn't trying to make an argument from authority, just that I agree with Clint's words.

I mean, seriously, if something is 'wrong' and still doesn't hurt us, who gives a fuck?

[53dumey]

@Arcexey

Its not rather Gay marriage would hurt anyone or not.

Its about a small Radical group of Gays trying to Shove their ideas down everyones Throats and if you Don't agree then Your wrong.

THAT is why I push back !

They have already stopped the debates on wether they are Born Gay and moved to stop words like Queer and Faggot from language !!!

[Arcexey]

@53dumey "Its not rather Gay marriage would hurt anyone or not." So then what does it matter if they are trying to "...Shove their ideas down everyones Throats.." If it doesn't hurt anyone, why do you care?

[YY4Me133]

@53dumey You wrote: "Its about a small Radical group of Gays trying to Shove their ideas down everyones Throats and if you Don't agree then Your wrong."

They want equality. If you think they don't deserve equality, you *are* wrong.

Whether people are born homosexual is irrelevant. They're entitled to the same rights and protections as every other citizen. Of course they want people to stop treating them with disrespect. I'm pretty sure that you don't like to be disrespected, either.

[53dumey]

@YY4Me133

EQUALITY ??

Why is it that anyone going against Gay Marriage on TV are either fired or attacked by Gay groups ?

Don't you believe in the Right to Free Speech ?

[YY4Me133]

@53dumey I don't know anything about people being fired for speaking out against homosexuals on TV, so I can't comment on that. As for gay groups "attacking" people who say bigoted things about homosexuals, don't they have freedom of speech, as well, or do you expect them to be silent after they've been "attacked?"

[53dumey]

@YY4Me133

You call people who disagree with Gay marriage as bigioted or Homophobic in order to shut down the debate.

How is That free speech ????

[YY4Me133]

@53dumey Perhaps you don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. One side is free to say nasty things about homosexuals, and the other side is free to call them bigoted (prejudiced and intolerant), and even homophobic. Each time one side says something the other side doesn't like, they're free to respond to that. When they try to enforce their personal prejudices via civil law, they've stepped over the line. Big time.

[eventhisidistaken]

@53dumey Freedom of speech does not imply that there are no consequences, but rather, that speech can not be restricted by law. You can still face social consequences, including getting fired. If you want to speak out on TV against gay marriage, and you don't want to lose you job, then pick an employer that's ok with that, like Fox news.

[53dumey]

@eventhisidistaken

THANK GOD for Fox news !

The only ones who are'nt afraid to say that the debate is Not over !

The only ones who have'nt tucked in their tail and went running because some Activist group or the ACLU has pointed their finger at them.

You are NOT born that way !!!!

Lady GaGa lied !!!

[eventhisidistaken]

@53dumey We observe homosexuality in other species as well, so yes, the "debate" is certainly over. Innate sexual preference just is not black and white.

[53dumey]

@eventhisidistaken

Animals have small brains.

You must also if that makes you think its OK !!!!!!!!

[PanicusVulgaris]

@ScabeiathraxUK loving someone is not immoral, regardless of gender. Having sick unnatural sexual relations IS immoral and sick! And I'm saying this as an absolute atheist and supporter of evolution theory. Enough already with abuses of atheism to promote mental sickness! If our ancestors were this sick, we would have never evolved, would have died out if our grandfathers would have slept with grandfathers. Being violent toward gays IS immoral and wrong, but their behavior is immoral as well.

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@PanicusVulgaris

"sick unnatural sexual relations"

Who decides what natural is? Is homosexual sex in animals natural? ex: Bonobos?

"would have died out if our grandfathers would have slept with grandfathers"

Honestly? You know the population of the Earth is still increasing, right? Homosexuality, if anything, helps to slow the worlds inevitable overpopulation. By no means does it stop reproduction altogether. Unless you're suggesting that homosexuality spreads, like some kind of disease? :/

[JayMerc75]

@ScabeiathraxUK it also explains how you must treat one another! I love the way you miss interpret the bible. if you are going to speak against the bible put some fact to it instead of just writing what other people say. 

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@JayMerc75 " if you are going to speak against the bible put some fact to it instead of just writing what other people say."

The ironic thing here, is that the Bible is just 'what other people say' too.

As for being taught how people should be treated... the OT includes the murder of entire civilisations, including babies and cattle. It also includes a crowd of children being killed by bears, by God's command, for mocking a man for being bald. And numerous other ridiculous examples.

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@bekinat0rr

"IF the God of the bible exists which He does"

I really don't think you can consider your opinion objective, when you talk like that.

"He being the master and being perfect has ever every right to demand perfection from his creation"

If he was perfect in every way, why would he create something imperfect, and then ask it to be perfect on its own? And God confesses jealousy... is that part of perfection now?

As for Adam's existance, several biblical 'facts' are now known as false.

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@bekinat0rr Adam's existance, continued;

False 'facts' such as the age of the Earth, listed in the Bible, count against Adam's existance, in debate. But Adam has nothing counting *for* his existance, except for the book of Genesis, which isn't contemporary, nor does it have any evidence which coincides.

I assume unicorns do not exist, despite numerous texts telling me they do, because there is no actual *proof* of their existance. What seperates Adam from unicorns?

[sionnyn]

@53dumey the greeks and romans also had religion.

Can you prove that the religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, creator of all mankind and the wonders of the universe, is wrong?

[JayMerc75]

@ScabeiathraxUK It is actually very clear in the bible!!! why don't you read instead of criticizing it.

The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.

Mark 12:31

I would not say that the Romans or the barbarians or any civilization that pre dates the ten commandments or after really understood morality. The new testament and old testaments are very clear on homosexuality and condemns it along with adultery and fornication.

[ScabeiathraxUK]

@JayMerc75 "I would not say that the Romans or the barbarians or any civilization that pre dates the ten commandments or after really understood morality"

The key part there is 'I would not say'. You're no historian, and the truth is, you just really don't know. You'd like to think they didn't understand morality, but that doesn't mean that they didn't. The fact is, the laws Christians love to claim to be based on the ten commandments existed before the ten commandments.

[DawnOfTheDead991]

@JayMerc75 Fact is, you can't command or coerce people to love others. That was always the fatal flaw in Christianity

[rettie]

If this man's as thorough a biologist as he is about theology - I'd like to check where and how he got his PhD.

This is so shallow, pretentious and ignorant - that it's dazzling.

It's like hearing a crusader speak about Islam.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@rettie Thanks for offering the "poison the well" fallacy. if this is the best you can do, you might consider getting a refund from your education providers. Since you did not actually try to refute any points that Richard made you haven't actually added anything to the debate. Sorry, it just wasn't worth your time or mental effort(assuming that you used any).

[rettie]

@EmmittBrownBTTF1

You insult my education, bend the facts about my claim, are vulgar about my chosen stance - and claim that I "add nothing to the debate".

Would you really debate this, like a civilized academic citizen - or would you look for any possible gaps in my words, as thought we were soldiers in opposing armies.

This has NOTHING to do with a debate.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@rettie By "nothing" I meant no reasoned argument or real world evidence supporting an alternative position preferably with peer reveiwed. Your comment was simply an Ad Hominem attack only valid if he's forwarding a theory in religious thought. He expressing his opinion, well known principles and his interpretation. Your disagreement in no way invalidates comments. I invite you to make reasoned arguments or real world evidence to refute Richards specific assertions.

[rettie]

@EmmittBrownBTTF1

DEBATE, is when people compare their findings, scrutinize them to the best of their abilities, and share their insights, drawing conclusions.

IF you want to DEBATE - then DEBATE: CUT with the insulting insulting vulgar primitive BULLSHIT, STOP with the damn LABELS and other rubbish and START using your BRAIN to produce FACTS, present ARGUMENTS, use LOGIC to COMMUNICATE on a level that's better than a CAVEMAN.

[rettie]

@EmmittBrownBTTF1

You're standing on a very slippery slope. Dawkins' hate speech is an average rant that can be found on an average blog.

Now THINK...

... CAN you really defend the claim that it's any other way using ONLY logic, ARGUMENTS, like a CIVILIZED ACADEMICALLY EDUCATED person, WITHOUT insults, labels and other RUBBISH...

... or are you going to look for a way to insult me, without letting the idea that I disagree with you because I gave it a thought even GRAZING you?

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@rettie Richards criticisms are targeted at religion & the chilling effects it has on the human spirit & reason. As for how his comments relate to those who practise religion In general, Richard argues the compassionate case that without adherence to religion's illogical & self-contradictory doctrines including (not limited to) contemplation of sin, damnation & hell fire, atonement via physical harm that people may enjoy a life without fear induce by artificial & demonstrably unsupported ideas.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@rettie Richards comments are far from hate speech. Lets be clear, I wasn't insulting you but the exhibition of fallacious reasoning you forwarded as "debate". I reserve the right to criticise flawed reasoning and call it out as such. You cannot reasonably infer that contempt for exhibitions of stupidity is contempt for those exhibit it, because even intelligent people(all ages) behave stupidly from time to time. Ad Hominem attacks are low, I will criticise them - yours, mine or any one else's.

[JOKACRAZY25]

Christ is but one of the three natures of God, just as we are as well. Christ was sent to be an example to us, a model if you may, to human kind and reverance to the Heavenly Father. so ok, why not forgive the sins? well, God is a Just God.Somone had to get punished for the payment. if you were sentenced to capital punishment and somone begs to take your place and of course is alowed by the executioner, who or why would you argue for that? Do you realy want to DIE?!?!

[winterstellar]

@JOKACRAZY25 When I'm 90 I'm pretty sure I'll be tired of life, yes. Thanks to science and seemingly good genes in my family it looks like I'll be old. The ancients who invented after-lives and religions had very short and horrible lives, so no wonder they fantasized a bit. Today the fantasies are obsolete, at least in the modern world: )

[gethsoftware]

@JOKACRAZY25 it makes no sence. that is like taking money from your own pockets and then giving it to your self. nothing in your religion makes sence. allso god that wants blood sacrifaces is not god but evil monster. when i belived in god, i belived it was not the christian god bechose christian god is very ungodly. now i know that there are better things then gods.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@JOKACRAZY25 Hmm, God put on a human suit and went slumming for 30+ years to sacrifice himself to himself before buggering off back home to f know where. Sounds more like a sabbatical than a sacrifice doesn't it? Oh and when did this happen anywhere between c600BC to c33AD. And the only people to see him between lynching and departure were apparently having hallucinations. This has so much credibility you could fill a teapot orbiting a hydrogen nucleus under its election shell..8^D

[Forlo12345]

@darthelghastN7 Yeah, don't worry about it. I was the same way. I used to be a creationist, but when the age of reason hit me in high school. I went from christian to deist, to agnostic, and now athiest. Strange: I feel happier and more enlightened now that I deconverted than I ever was as a believer.

[Forlo12345]

@darthelghastN7 Miniscule? Yes. But not stagnant. If you think about it, there are more athiests, free thinkers, and agnostics today than there were 50 years ago, and again 50 years before that. People are becoming more secular and rational. So just because things look bad now, doesn't mean they won't get better in the future. in my honest opinion

[MaxBlight]

really... all you need to do is read the bible, as in READ the bible, chapter per chapter, verse by verse, then read about traditions from religions from the pasts and you will see ALOT of things in common, with the one thing that is funny is that those traditions came BEFORE christianity came to be known.

Heck, Jesus = Horus, same story of life.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@MaxBlight [satire]But if people read the bible that would be eating the "apple". Again no less! The folks who did that the first time I so kicked their asses so there'd be no bleedin' way anybody would voluntarily do it again. Especially since I plan to do something akin to permanently attaching them to the business end of a permanently activated TAZER. Your loving Yahweh. PS I'm a little busy hassling south asia goat herders, so you might not hear from me for awhile.[/satire] 8^D

[fothgt]

can we go to england and get all our american soldiers bodies back from June 6, 1944? Because their blood was not worth an ounce of the sacrifice they made only for Englishmen like Dawkins and Hitchens to attack what probably over 90 per cent believed.

[winterstellar]

@fothgt Nope. Sorry, travelling back in time is just as impossible as say...be dead for three days and then rise again..you know, totally impossible and a fairy-tale. : )

[fothgt]

@winterstellar that's what make's the resurrection story awesome! For with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Faith in what is seen is great. Faith in that which is unseen moves mountains.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@fothgt 1)Sacrifice him in a man suit to him after slumming it for 30yrs - thats a great loss alright.

2)Except for answering payers because being unseen is so important and all that suffering part of the compassionate plan. Is it just possible that the Council of Nacea compiled a bunch of fanstantic myths in the vein hope that they would recognised as rubbish? One line speaks of evil dressed up as virtue, hint perhaps?

[fothgt]

@EmmittBrownBTTF1 Probably not possible per council. The issue was not compiling myths. The issue was establishing truth. Truth that many are stumbling at today (Romans 9:33). The man suit was provided so that men "who see" would remain blind and those who "did not see" eyes would be opened. If you (as many claim to) see, according to the Scriptures would have the "witness from above." But instead, like many remain blind TO THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD (JOHN 20:31).

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@fothgt Appeal to authority & poisoning well are known tools of false argument. Believing a thing does not make it so. You are already atheistic on Thor, Vishnu, Sheave, Buddha and Tane and others. Atheists get along just fine pretty much, except for theist zealots picking on them. But that has nothing to do with God and is more about arrogant ignorant suspicion of the "other" aka "with us or against us". Your hostile bigoted emotion is self evident. 1st Amendment rules OK.

[Forlo12345]

Why doesn't this video have more views!?!?!

[fothgt]

@Forlo12345 The reason the video does not have more views is simple. When the movie of the passion of the Christ came out, someone wrote that people do not live in theological nuances. And so it is with issues like this. Most people just don't concern themselves with nuances. If HItchens and Dawkins don't believe in universal atonement through the person of Jesus Christ, many people go on with their respective lives. Matter of fact, I believe the gospel (Matthew 15:14).

[Forlo12345]

@fothgt Your explanation raises more doubts than it does answers. By your reasoning, this video doesn't have that many views because people are becoming more athiest, so shouldn't they be more interested in what Richard Dawkins has to say against religion? Shouldn't this video have more views IN SPITE of that, even though you claim the contrary? That the "ignorant" follows the "ignorant" to their own downfall? (like Matthew 15:14) Nevertheless, you haven't answered the question. Not really.

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

@Forlo12345 its newish

[Zy9dot5]

I love Richard Dawkins. He is an honest man with a brilliant mind and personal integrity.

The people who make him the object of their ridicule are covering their inability to be honest or ethical.

[IronFox102]

Excellent vid.

[tlowndes2]

Troll got the first post.

[sherrys6214]

He is lifeless.

[is3it7lonar]

@sherrys6214 Jesus IS dead. You're right.