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 to 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
This is really bizarre. What point are you actually trying to make? I watched this and your thunderf00t video and don't know what you are trying to point out. I looked at your channel and saw that you actually have subscribers. Have you you ever been diagnosed as having some sort of personality disorder because this is the kind of conversation you have in an asylum?
As someone who was an atheist about 6 months ago, I don't have a problem with people who oppose Christianity and respectfully raise objections. However, I do have a problem with people like Dawkins who are angry, intolerant, resort to name-calling, and constantly say that theists are stupid. He may have started out as a serious scientist, but I can't see him as anything more than a publicity stunt at this point.
Can any of you say the same for the holy book of your religion? Do your books say things that are verifiable, testable and observable? Do they require the god that is said to have brought them to man for them to be true?
I Make the claim that the books under which the name dawkins is given credit are solid and are as true as they could have been for the time that they were made. I make no claims that there was a dawkins to write them, or that the dawkins that many have said they have seen and touched is the same that wrote them.. but i look at the books themselves and stand by the facts and arguments presented in them.
I love this video. People act like this doesn't sound EXACTLY like Dawkins.
PS: Everyone making comments about blocking ratings and sorting out comments. Duh. I wouldn't dare leave open commenting on this video. The kind of hateful sewage that spews out of the mouths of faithful Dawkins followers is truly amazing. It would get instant 1/5 ratings because of the viewpoint, never mind the fact that the interview was done very well. Thanks for keeping this up. This is good stuff.
Because the character's "life" can be traced through verifiable sources, i.e. fingerprints, birth certificates, living eye witnesses, family DNA samples, blood samples, all that fun stuff.
Well, in a matter of speaking, your great grandfather does not exist anymore, save whatever remains of his might be buried somewhere. As for Dawkins, if you really wanted to satisfy your curiosity as whether he existed, it would be fairly easy and routine for you to do so.
You have failed to present any of Dawkins' supposed fingerprints, birth certificates, living eye witnesses, family DNA samples, blood samples, or any other type of evidence, none of which exist anywhere -- you have only provided empty words.
You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence for your imaginary friend, "Dawkins," so the only logical conclusion is that he doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that "Dawkins" supposedly exists, but you have failed to do so.
I haven't failed to do anything. "Failing" connotes trying without succeeding. I'm fairly confident that if I tried, I could present you with satisfactory evidence that Mr. Dawkins exists. Now, could you offer the same standard of proof of your deity that I could for Mr. Dawkins?
The burden of proof is on you, since you are positing the myth that your imaginary friend "dawkins" somehow exists. The reason why you have failed to provide any proof is that there isn't any.
Just because we don't know how the book came about doesn't give you any reason to immediately jump to the premature conclusion that "dawkins dunnit."
It's much moire likely that the book just spontaneously developed by chance than some unproven entity "created" it. Besides, who created dawkins?
You have still failed to prove that your imaginary friend "dawkins" supposedly exists. Why would you need a day or so? If he existed at all, then you would be able to prove him at any time, on any day of the week.
Obviously, you're bluffing and "dawkins" doesn't exist at all.
If there's supposedly evidence that "dawkins" exists, then why isn't the media reporting it? Also, you have failed to answer the question, "who designed dawkins?"
You lose! Get an education, do some research, get laughed out of science class, and find out what the phrase "burden of proof" means.
@Purushadasa Why does a Dawkins need to be designed? I have never made a claim that any dawkins does exist, or that the books that have his name on them are from any kind of dawkins, but the statements in those books do not require a dawkins for them to be either true or false.. We dont need to prove a dawkins only that the statements in the books are true.
This is actually very good. Except for the fact that, unlike God/Jesus,, Richard Dawkins has been seen and recorded by mass audiences on TV and video many times and thiat his voice is so recognizeable it can be parodied in videos like this. But other than those small details, the same exact argument showing there is no God could be used to show there is no Dawkins.
Actually, what home viewers have seen is a series of photons collected together on their screens, not an actual entity called Dawkins. There is no evidence that these images were not just produced by computer graphics, or, even more likely, that they were just portrayed by actors.
By the atheistic "logic" that it's somehow okay to claim that an entity doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, then Dawkins doesn't exist, because there has never been a shred of evidence for it.
JEHOVAH: Im going to condemn man and woman with original sin, because they ate my apples. Then, Im going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born. Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself; to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to?
Absurd, i like the book but disagree with him in a lot of things, Thats why we are not part of a Richard Dawkins delusion.
On the other hand i belive in the existance of another human being called richard who wrytes books because is logical to think so. I dont belive in supernatural entities with sex absesions and cataclismic cosmic powers because that is plain stupid.
Dawkins has a medical record. O.o As far as I know that means he has mortality meaning he is finite and as far as I know Dawkins doesn't demand whorship or claim to heal the sick or do magical miricals. The is no fucking Dawkins religion! Plus he has been interviewd by the BBC and News Programs with comments on world disasters.. More than god ever did.
Aww, this video was vaguely funny until it started making comparisons to actual science and was revealed to carry the same woeful ignorance of evolution and natural selection that forms the basis for most creationist arguments.
However, while it doesn't seem to intend to, this video does make Dawkins' case for him in its absurd exaggeration.
His name was Richard Milton commissioned by London Times Higher Education Supplement to 'critique darwinism'. They were bombarded by letters by Dawkins and his whores and the publishers caved in a scrapped Miltons work.
Dawkins is a very shady character. There was a scientist who was writing an essay which critiques evolution. Dawkins and his sidekicks got wind of it and started bombarding the publishers with letters asking them not to publish the scientists essay. The publishers relented eventually and the essay was never published.
I can find the name of the scientist but cant remember it at the moment.
@RationalResponse5000 ur such an idiot. trying to save your skin with blocking comments and rates on your thunderf00t video about him spreading atheistic propaganda. wtf were you smoking that night? just understand that he is right and that creationism is wrong.
"We are working on it" was taken from the O'Reilly factor in response to Bill's question about ultimate origination. Of course nobody knows the answer to that question. Funny video though. As of late people have been using Dawkins to attack atheism and although Dawkins is an atheist, he's not a prophet or even a representative of ahteism. It is unfortunate that so many atheists rely on the "Four Horsemen" for their information.
Well, the 'four horsemen' are very clever. It only makes sense to turn to them since they have a lot of the best arguments and have already taken the basic discussions atheists have to a much higher level years ago.
What a silly question. Of course I exist. If I did not exist I could hardly have disproven Dawkins' existence and I could also not have written "The Dawkins who was not there".
That assumes A)that you have disproven Dawkins' existence and B) that you have written 'The Dawkins who was not there'.
In the first instance, you cannot prove a negative, only bring it to the level of Dawkins almost certainly not existing despite the books authored by him and multiplicity of video recording evidence showing said individual.
In the second instance, I can find no evidence of this book.
Believe me, the book is very real. It's the 2nd edition now with over 894 pages. If you still doubt its existence then you can buy it for only 29 pounds and I will send it to you with a personal signature from me, famous Dr. Terry Tommyrot.
Sorry - the 'lovewillow' comment is actually mine (an alt account I have for entertainment stuff).
Though I received an email for the vid response, there's nothing in my inbox. If it doesn't show in the next day, could you resend? Not sure if it's a youtube glitch or not. I actually thought I had my vids set so I didn't need to approve responses.
In the spirit of good natured ribbing, I'll allow the vid response (I'm not one to censor *wink*), but I'm not sure Dawkins was your best target for this parody. The parallel doesn't quite jive. All good. g'day
I would not consider myself an "aDawkinist" even though I do not believe that Dawkins exist but it's not meaningful enough for me to give myself such a title. I also do not believe in the spaghetti monster but this doesn't mean that I give myself the title "aspaghetti monsterist" because it's certainly not relevant for how I live my life just as the fictional Dawkins has no relevance for my life at all. Thanks again.
moron
RobertBadoux 3 months 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 to 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 4 months ago
My rating for cowards: thumbs down!
weberbeat 9 months ago
This vid is a JOKE! In a way, SATIRE! What the hell is wrong with you people?
PalulukanMakto 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid video...dont waste your time watching it.
moonshineinsummer1 1 year ago
I am not sure which is funnier, this video or the comments by the people who didn't get it.
Noisegator 1 year ago
This is really bizarre. What point are you actually trying to make? I watched this and your thunderf00t video and don't know what you are trying to point out. I looked at your channel and saw that you actually have subscribers. Have you you ever been diagnosed as having some sort of personality disorder because this is the kind of conversation you have in an asylum?
ptango101 1 year ago
This is freaking hilarious.
As someone who was an atheist about 6 months ago, I don't have a problem with people who oppose Christianity and respectfully raise objections. However, I do have a problem with people like Dawkins who are angry, intolerant, resort to name-calling, and constantly say that theists are stupid. He may have started out as a serious scientist, but I can't see him as anything more than a publicity stunt at this point.
MasterWok7 1 year ago 2
I used to belive in Dawkins but after watching your video I now realize that he doesnt exist.
pezyguy 1 year ago
Can any of you say the same for the holy book of your religion? Do your books say things that are verifiable, testable and observable? Do they require the god that is said to have brought them to man for them to be true?
BleddryMcBlood 1 year ago
I Make the claim that the books under which the name dawkins is given credit are solid and are as true as they could have been for the time that they were made. I make no claims that there was a dawkins to write them, or that the dawkins that many have said they have seen and touched is the same that wrote them.. but i look at the books themselves and stand by the facts and arguments presented in them.
BleddryMcBlood 1 year ago
I love this video. People act like this doesn't sound EXACTLY like Dawkins.
PS: Everyone making comments about blocking ratings and sorting out comments. Duh. I wouldn't dare leave open commenting on this video. The kind of hateful sewage that spews out of the mouths of faithful Dawkins followers is truly amazing. It would get instant 1/5 ratings because of the viewpoint, never mind the fact that the interview was done very well. Thanks for keeping this up. This is good stuff.
greyspot00 1 year ago 2
bhooooo
Faithless863 1 year ago
I'm not sure who's the bigger idiot; the one who questioned dawkins existence with the notion of "burden of proof" or the one who responded to it.
not forgetting that certain things like "proof" and "truth" are actually subjective - not objective.
What proves something to one person, does not prove it to others.
what one person holds to be true, is not true to another.
the sooner people realise that, the sooner you'll see we're all just blind people arguing about what "colour" looks like.
gavsmith1980 1 year ago
Ignorant arguments are tough to deal with, even when staged, huh?
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Brilliant video -- 5 stars!
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Because the character's "life" can be traced through verifiable sources, i.e. fingerprints, birth certificates, living eye witnesses, family DNA samples, blood samples, all that fun stuff.
Haroldbeavis1969 2 years ago
Comment removed
justmam 2 years ago
Well, in a matter of speaking, your great grandfather does not exist anymore, save whatever remains of his might be buried somewhere. As for Dawkins, if you really wanted to satisfy your curiosity as whether he existed, it would be fairly easy and routine for you to do so.
Haroldbeavis1969 2 years ago
You have failed to present any of Dawkins' supposed fingerprints, birth certificates, living eye witnesses, family DNA samples, blood samples, or any other type of evidence, none of which exist anywhere -- you have only provided empty words.
You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence for your imaginary friend, "Dawkins," so the only logical conclusion is that he doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that "Dawkins" supposedly exists, but you have failed to do so.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
I haven't failed to do anything. "Failing" connotes trying without succeeding. I'm fairly confident that if I tried, I could present you with satisfactory evidence that Mr. Dawkins exists. Now, could you offer the same standard of proof of your deity that I could for Mr. Dawkins?
Haroldbeavis1969 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on you, since you are positing the myth that your imaginary friend "dawkins" somehow exists. The reason why you have failed to provide any proof is that there isn't any.
Just because we don't know how the book came about doesn't give you any reason to immediately jump to the premature conclusion that "dawkins dunnit."
It's much moire likely that the book just spontaneously developed by chance than some unproven entity "created" it. Besides, who created dawkins?
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Of course the burden of proof lies with me to show that Dawkins in fact exists.
And if you give me a day or so, I'll make an irrefutable case proving his existence.
Now, how much time will you need to meet the same burden of proof for the existence of your deity?
Haroldbeavis1969 2 years ago
You have still failed to prove that your imaginary friend "dawkins" supposedly exists. Why would you need a day or so? If he existed at all, then you would be able to prove him at any time, on any day of the week.
Obviously, you're bluffing and "dawkins" doesn't exist at all.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
If there's supposedly evidence that "dawkins" exists, then why isn't the media reporting it? Also, you have failed to answer the question, "who designed dawkins?"
You lose! Get an education, do some research, get laughed out of science class, and find out what the phrase "burden of proof" means.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
@Purushadasa Why does a Dawkins need to be designed? I have never made a claim that any dawkins does exist, or that the books that have his name on them are from any kind of dawkins, but the statements in those books do not require a dawkins for them to be either true or false.. We dont need to prove a dawkins only that the statements in the books are true.
BleddryMcBlood 1 year ago
You're right, I could not prove Dawkins exists without a shadow of a doubt within this last half hour.
So that must mean I am bluffing and you win the argument.
Will you go away now?
Haroldbeavis1969 2 years ago
This is actually very good. Except for the fact that, unlike God/Jesus,, Richard Dawkins has been seen and recorded by mass audiences on TV and video many times and thiat his voice is so recognizeable it can be parodied in videos like this. But other than those small details, the same exact argument showing there is no God could be used to show there is no Dawkins.
Except for those small details....
Haroldbeavis1969 2 years ago
Actually, what home viewers have seen is a series of photons collected together on their screens, not an actual entity called Dawkins. There is no evidence that these images were not just produced by computer graphics, or, even more likely, that they were just portrayed by actors.
By the atheistic "logic" that it's somehow okay to claim that an entity doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, then Dawkins doesn't exist, because there has never been a shred of evidence for it.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
LOL!!!!
diuryl 2 years ago
funny
MrGrayish 2 years ago
I touched Richard Dawkins :)
o0UekiKousuke0o 2 years ago
i assulted him
specialedd13 2 years ago
This has to be the funniest video I have ever seen.
TheWildMagic 2 years ago
while i disagree with your position, i think your video is Brilliant! you really did a good job in doing a clever and well constructed video.
Commonsense11111 2 years ago
Yeah, it's funny and pretty well done, though of course logically bankrupt and pointless except as humour :P
Gliktch 2 years ago
Hahaha!!!! BRAVO!!
Tostieroll09 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity in a Nutshell.
JEHOVAH: Im going to condemn man and woman with original sin, because they ate my apples. Then, Im going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born. Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself; to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to?
DENY BULLSHIT!
SirianKings 2 years ago
Come on guys, lets not give material for a "Why people laugh at naturalists" series... we can all see this is halarious!!!
HerbyHippie 2 years ago
This is just pure unintelligible dribble.
rucha58 2 years ago 7
Absurd, i like the book but disagree with him in a lot of things, Thats why we are not part of a Richard Dawkins delusion.
On the other hand i belive in the existance of another human being called richard who wrytes books because is logical to think so. I dont belive in supernatural entities with sex absesions and cataclismic cosmic powers because that is plain stupid.
EspejoOscuro 3 years ago
cunning ;)
dAvrilthebear 3 years ago
Dawkins has a medical record. O.o As far as I know that means he has mortality meaning he is finite and as far as I know Dawkins doesn't demand whorship or claim to heal the sick or do magical miricals. The is no fucking Dawkins religion! Plus he has been interviewd by the BBC and News Programs with comments on world disasters.. More than god ever did.
Totaltwist 3 years ago
".. More than god ever did. "
but i thought God doesnt exist?
kobasica 2 years ago
Which one? I think Loki might be.
Totaltwist 2 years ago
Aww, this video was vaguely funny until it started making comparisons to actual science and was revealed to carry the same woeful ignorance of evolution and natural selection that forms the basis for most creationist arguments.
However, while it doesn't seem to intend to, this video does make Dawkins' case for him in its absurd exaggeration.
echo29x 3 years ago
"new perspective? no, just a flawed logic."
Yes, the flawed logic being that of Dawkin's argument here to which this satiricle video highlights rather effectively in my opinion.
Christianjr4 3 years ago 3
His name was Richard Milton commissioned by London Times Higher Education Supplement to 'critique darwinism'. They were bombarded by letters by Dawkins and his whores and the publishers caved in a scrapped Miltons work.
sonofthedestroyer 3 years ago
"Dawkins and his whores"?? Your god&Jesus Christ don't even deserve to clean Dawkins's toilet.
jigoku66 3 years ago
I dont care about Christ. I am not a christian.
Not very intelligent are you if you jump to conclusions that anyone who dosent agree with evolution is a christian.
sonofthedestroyer 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I should have said "you" instead of "Jesus". I hope there's no misunderstanding this time.
jigoku66 3 years ago
No misunderstanding. I dont deserve to clean Dawkins's toilet, you do!
sonofthedestroyer 3 years ago
Using you as a rag.
jigoku66 3 years ago
Dawkins is a very shady character. There was a scientist who was writing an essay which critiques evolution. Dawkins and his sidekicks got wind of it and started bombarding the publishers with letters asking them not to publish the scientists essay. The publishers relented eventually and the essay was never published.
I can find the name of the scientist but cant remember it at the moment.
sonofthedestroyer 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a fucking joke.
Euclid420 3 years ago
ROFL hahahahhahaha brilliant video. I have always said this to people. The same way Dawkins twists things, that can be applied against him.
sonofthedestroyer 3 years ago
"If a Dawkins designed the books, then who designed the Dawkins" LOL ahahah. BRILLIANT!!!!
This puts a whole new perspective on Dawkins arguments.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
this is stupid
you guys are a bunch of deluded ****s
typical stupid arguements on behalf of religion WELL DONE FOR FURTHER EMBARESSING YOURSELVES
ooo that made me beleive in noah's ark,
na not really... ****wits!
andychaos1 3 years ago
I wish you had ratings enabled, because this is definitely a FIVE STAR VID! Nice job!
ollie501 3 years ago
this is stupid. no wonder ratings are disabled.
ytben26 3 years ago 4
Belief in Dawkins is stupid. THIS is a rational interview with me, famous Dr.Terry Tommyrot.
RationalResponse5000 3 years ago
@RationalResponse5000 ur such an idiot. trying to save your skin with blocking comments and rates on your thunderf00t video about him spreading atheistic propaganda. wtf were you smoking that night? just understand that he is right and that creationism is wrong.
MrDingedong 1 year ago
"We are working on it" was taken from the O'Reilly factor in response to Bill's question about ultimate origination. Of course nobody knows the answer to that question. Funny video though. As of late people have been using Dawkins to attack atheism and although Dawkins is an atheist, he's not a prophet or even a representative of ahteism. It is unfortunate that so many atheists rely on the "Four Horsemen" for their information.
Rybot9000 3 years ago
Well, the 'four horsemen' are very clever. It only makes sense to turn to them since they have a lot of the best arguments and have already taken the basic discussions atheists have to a much higher level years ago.
iamthedave3 3 years ago 2
You mean three horsemen because Dawkins does not exist. He is as real as the flying spaghetti monster or bigfoot, but maybe you're into this stuff.
RationalResponse5000 3 years ago
What makes you believe that the other three exist?
Or, indeed, what makes you think that you exist?
iamthedave3 3 years ago 2
What a silly question. Of course I exist. If I did not exist I could hardly have disproven Dawkins' existence and I could also not have written "The Dawkins who was not there".
RationalResponse5000 3 years ago
That assumes A)that you have disproven Dawkins' existence and B) that you have written 'The Dawkins who was not there'.
In the first instance, you cannot prove a negative, only bring it to the level of Dawkins almost certainly not existing despite the books authored by him and multiplicity of video recording evidence showing said individual.
In the second instance, I can find no evidence of this book.
Hence, you may exist, but that is not proof.
iamthedave3 3 years ago
Believe me, the book is very real. It's the 2nd edition now with over 894 pages. If you still doubt its existence then you can buy it for only 29 pounds and I will send it to you with a personal signature from me, famous Dr. Terry Tommyrot.
RationalResponse5000 3 years ago
But the book itself is not proof of your existence, only of the book's existence. Nor is the signature, anybody could write that.
What evidence, Dr. Tommyrot, do you have to support your own existence?
iamthedave3 3 years ago 8
@iamthedave3, I think Tommyrot just proved his existence by appearing on an interview which you were just watching.
FongLin100 11 months ago
Sorry - the 'lovewillow' comment is actually mine (an alt account I have for entertainment stuff).
Though I received an email for the vid response, there's nothing in my inbox. If it doesn't show in the next day, could you resend? Not sure if it's a youtube glitch or not. I actually thought I had my vids set so I didn't need to approve responses.
thanks
godlesswonder 3 years ago
In the spirit of good natured ribbing, I'll allow the vid response (I'm not one to censor *wink*), but I'm not sure Dawkins was your best target for this parody. The parallel doesn't quite jive. All good. g'day
loveswillow 3 years ago
Finally someone from the science community who has the guts to stand up and say it like it is. Kudos to Tommyrot!!!!
yaxscd1 3 years ago
Once you know why you reject fictional writers such as Clark Kent, George McFly, and Snoopy, you'll know why I reject Richard Dawkins.
Vid favorited.
crypticlife 3 years ago
Ratings disabled? Just what I'd expect from an immoral aDawkinist!
Ooooh. First!
andwar99 3 years ago
Thank you for your comment, andwar99.
I would not consider myself an "aDawkinist" even though I do not believe that Dawkins exist but it's not meaningful enough for me to give myself such a title. I also do not believe in the spaghetti monster but this doesn't mean that I give myself the title "aspaghetti monsterist" because it's certainly not relevant for how I live my life just as the fictional Dawkins has no relevance for my life at all. Thanks again.
RationalResponse5000 3 years ago