If the answer was insulting (which it wasn't...) then the question would also be insulting as well as it was shallow and dismissive of Dawkins' life work.
As for Dawkins not being a deep thinker - try reading some of his many books rather that judging him on the answer to such a feeble question.
(Comments directed at the video maker, obviously... I believe this is a reposted vid?)
Look mate, Professor Dawkins is quite a clever chap. The clever part is that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what he is saying. It is in fact painfully clear to anyone with a normal level understanding and reason that what he says makes perfect sense. Not only does he state what he can be proven, but humbly admits science doesn't have all the answers yet. You don't have to be deep to understand evolution (for example) it's science, not abstract metaphysical nonsense.
At 3:45 this muppet tries to claim that Dinesh D'Souza is a christian from a hindu background. He isn't. The clue is in his name, His family are Goans (a predominantly christian state in India that was previously a portuguese colony) and his name originates from catholic Portugal.
@baldieman64 Dr. White didn't say D'Souza was a Christian from a Hindu background, White pointed out the inane error in Dawkins' response of one's belief is by "the sheerest accident," according where one is born, which is nowhere near the truth. D'Souza is but one example, Pastor David Yonggi Cho is Christian and the pastor of Yohido Full Gospel, with the largest congregation in a country (S.Korea) that largely Buddhist.
You choose what you believe, not your birth or where your from.
@curonevans "Good for you for allowing comments. Really refreshing and brave" actually this is a mirrored video, the original poster disables comments and ratings on all his videos
I'm not sure why anyone thinks this would be insulting. It's not insulting in the least, even on it's own. In the context of the whole discussion it is even more clearly not insulting. Your argument is not only weak and fill of irrelevance it's not even valid.
He was right. You arent born a christian, but you can become a christian later in life. He is biased yes, but so are both sides. The issue is trying to come to a common level of understanding. Thats not always possible.
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
It is an amazing time in our history! Information is readily available to just about everyone in the world. Naturally, the exchange of ideas in a free society is going to foster the end of bronze age mythology. You seem upset about this....sorry! You can still believe and have your faith....you just won't be able to run things anymore...soon.
Thanks for allowing comments - rare for you deep thinking christians.
If "deep thinking christians" think that Dr. Dawkins' arguments are absurd then it proves that they are not able to be analytical, critical thinkers. What is the definitian of a "deep thinking christian"? Is is someone who reads the bible and accepts all of its prescriptions without question because of the fear of going to hell?
the trouble with youtube now is the negatives are not shown, so we cannot see how awful some are, you have nothing to say, you are an intellectual minnow, i just wasted time listening to you denigrate arguments most here agree with, so you have failed, all you are doing is looking like an idiot
sod youtube and not showing likes/dislikes any more
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.
Its unfortunate that you were offended. Perhaps you may find this video enlightening and come to terms with your resentment towards Dawkins. Just type in "The Real God: An Epiphany" into the search tool above. Promise its not meant offence, just endure the 7mins to the end
I don't understand why the response was rude or insulting. To start off with her question insinuated "what if you're wrong...and go to hell." Now that to me is an insulting question, because it assumes that just for not believing in a deity, I am somehow deserving of eternal torture.
I thought Dawkins handled it logically. To let her know that many various beliefs exist and hers is nothing special, it depends on upbringing and geography as much as personal choice.
There is nothing 'insulting' about reprimanding such an illogical and thoughtless question such as "what if you're wrong"
it seems that anytime anyone questions religion or points out a flaw it's suddenly "insulting" or "disrespectful"
if Richard Dawkins was talking about politics in his books etc he would be considered extremely mild, but because he's talking about religion everyone feels attacked and insulted because they think they're religious views should never be questioned. well fuck that
Maybe one of the deep thinking christians could give us the deeply thought out answer they woud like to have heard, based, of course, on the one book that they've read. The speaker suggests that anybody who disagrees with his view of religion should not be given a platform......What next? Gas chambers for non-christians? It doesn't seem to take much to turn that cross into a swastika.
@hughjarrse In the origin of Man, there was a full complement of genes between Adam and Eve. Her name means "mother of all." So their offspring and for many generations can interbreed with each other. It becomes perverse millennia later when the genes are diluted to the point Moses had to underline, "don't sleep with your siblings!" I admit, though, this fellow takes cheap shots. He took one at Dawkins and takes one at Kent Hovind too. Get an education there, smart guy!
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
If you really think deeply about religion and you actually bother to read the religious books from cover to cover and not simply cherry picking the bits you like, in Christianity's case 'the bible' then there is only one conclusion to be drawn by anybody who is capable of comprehension. Religion of any creed is a ridiculous and dangerous idea. The reason it survives anywhere is simply due to ignorance and laziness. What Richard Dawkins says is true enough for the majority and not insulting.
and by the way, whoever posted this video is stupid and arrogant...any serious theologian knows that there is unknown number of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so saying that christians think the world is only 6,000 years is a misrepresentation.
I don't see why people make a big deal about this fool...He didn't answer the question. Answering the question "What if you are wrong?" with a "what if you are wrong?" is stupid. He is nothing but smokes and mirrors
@bull1504 "I don't see why people make a big deal about this fool" maybe because he's one of the mos respected scientists in his field, and was a best selling author years befor he god sidetracked with a the god squad stuff, what did you want him to say "if I'm wrong I'll go to hell!" what would be the point in that? Dawkins just pointed out the idiocy of religion,
@hughjarrse Right. He is a well respected scientist that can't answer a simple question and resorts to all sorts of mockery to make his audience clap. "He is a christian because he was born in a christian country!!" BUAHHAHA ...that was so clever!! lets celebrate!!
That was nothing but a bunch of fools gathered together and coming with dumb and retarded punch lines to make themselves feel better about their "Illuminati" status.
@hughjarrse And by the way, since when does selling books mean anything? Isn't Governor Palin, one of the dumbest women in politics, a best selling author?
@hughjarrse And by the way, since when does selling books mean anything? Isn't Governor Palin, one of the dumbest women in politics, a best selling author?
The only "mind-numbed audience" is that of the happy-clapping tools who bobble along to the verbal nonsense of the orange-clad sky-friend worshiper. This guy whimpers about logic, then shuffles out his talking snake and invisible man..WTF ? The irony clangs like a church bell.
the fact that Christians like you find clips like this insulting is revealing - it shows that deep down, you feel that you deserve to be insulted. You're inviting it.. it's the same sort of self demolishing and weak nature that begs for a sky daddy to bow down to and read your thoughts
You have no idea what logic means, right? And you have no idea how when you say your beliefs are true that means you can't handle debate, right? Oh, the irony!
The FSM does actually explain all the things you say at around 3:00.
That's the entire point with the FSM - why it was invented - that it is a equally good (if not better) explanation to how the world is than any explanation put forward by any christian in history.
To me the answer "God did it" is effectively the same as saying "I don't know". That is the only way I can see it. Saying "I don't know" is at least intellectually honest.
I think that the question is more insulting that his answer
She asked a rediculous question, that is insulting to his and our intelligence. Philosophically Dawkins is not sophisticated, he is an illustrious scientist thats why we know he is a great thinker. He is relevant because he specialises in the pragmatic argument. If you want philosophical debate go to Harris or Dennet.
You over simplify the opposition and place words in his mouth, his response was apt, your response to his response is full of holes.
The answer was so easy it wasn't worthy of a deep thought.
If he's wrong, he's fucked, he'll get sent to hell and be tortured forever along with everyone who agrees with him & all muslims, buddhist, hindus, pastafarians, jews etc.
Dawkin's isn't praised for his depth or philosophical mind set. He's praised because he's honest, factual, straight to the point, clear & obvious.
Character assassination gets you nowhere in a debate about establishing objective truth.
James White sums up not only the immature and childish worldview of Dawkins, but it pretty much is accurate in regards to "atheists" in general. There is not one person who's ever walked the planet that truly believes in his/her heart that God does not exist. The atheists "unbelief" has nothing to do with proof, but has everything to do with offense at God's moral standard. Even if God walked the planet again, the people that love Him would still love him, those who hate would still hate Him.
@1776iscoming "There is not one person who's ever walked the planet that truly believes in his/her heart that God does not exist" that statement cannot be true unless you believe in Adam & Eve, because billions of humans inhabited this planet long before they had even questioned the existance of god or not, and if you insist Adam & Eve actually existed you're a con man or an idiot, you can decide for your self which is worse, James White makes a very good living out of idiots
Sure they existed, unless of course you have proof they didn't. The bible is dead on with each and every historical event that scripture describes, including Jesus walking the earth. I remember 10 or so years ago, "atheists" were claiming King David never existed either. Like I said to the other person, God isn't hiding from anybody.
@1776iscoming "10 or so years ago, "atheists" were claiming King David never existed either" funny you should mention King David, the bible says Jesus was decended from King David, but as we all know he wasn't Joseph was but we all know Joseph wasn't Jesus' dad, so the bible isn't quite "dead on" there! if Adam & Eve were real (I still can't ge used to grown up who believe that) then Seth must have had sex with his sister
@hughjarrse Who's to say Seth didn't have sex with his sister? If evolutionists are correct, I highly doubt a lot of homo sapiens evolved all at the same time. More than likely it was only a few who then procreated. Those first homo sapiens might have very well been related. So even in that respect, I would think science probably might agree that Seth did indeed have sex with his sister.
@jbourg333 Of course evolved species inter breed, there's no getting away from it, but why would a god use a plan were a fully formed homo sapien would have to shag his own sister, it seems rather perverse to me
@1776iscoming "James White sums up not only the immature and childish worldview of Dawkins" that's rather funny, can you think of anything more childish than "the magic man did it!" and can you imagine anything sadder than someone trapped in the attic of a house as the flood waters rise praying to their imaginary friend?
I'm not sure who the magic man is, I guess you're talking about your "ancestor" that crawled out of a pond. God is not hiding from anybody, He's very real and His existence is obvious unless one is trying to cover their eyes and pretend He doesn't exist.
Without God, an ultimate, perfect and holy judge, there are no morals. If the world existed in the manner that "atheists" believe it does, ie survival of the fittest, the smartest and most moral person would do whatever it took to survive, no matter what the consequence to anybody else.
@1776iscoming Bullcrap! Morals arise naturally out of living in social groups, because cooperation is necessary for the survival of these groups. It starts with the bonding between parents and offspring, neighbor with neighbor, and extends from there. Also, I would be very careful holding up the bible as containing just rules as most of them are ferocious in the extreme, meant only to frighten people into obedience: the penalty for breaking any one of the commandments is *death*, btw.
Unless you are an ancient Israelite, the civil and ceremonial laws do not pertain to anybody, they were fulfilled in Jesus. You will receive eternal death if you choose to deny Jesus on this earth, that is true. Denying to accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior and Him as the atonement for your sin is the only unpardonable sin.
Doesn't the gentleman posting this video consider that the question itself may have been insulting to Richard Dawkins, a man who on a regular basis gets death threats from Christians? (Probably not).
What a cheap tactic it is to attempt to under-cut an intellegent man based on how he answered a question that is, quite frankly, a frustrating question to answer for an atheist.
When i picture Christian i see a a grown up man/woman who still belongs in kindergarten
Why? Because i went to church a year and realised a whole lot of things about it.
Atleast in 2:34 there is this good window to explain that even the other christians consider the creationists to be dumb Fks Who simply means they agree with Dawkins.
And Yeah the Spaghetti monster is perfect to compare with the Christian god, its just as good of an explanation
While I respect your decision to not control comments and ratings like many pro-religious videos are, I disagree with the predisposition that Christianity is self-proving.
I can see where you would think Dawkins crossed the line with his answer. When you build your life around a book filled with incest, pedophilia, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genocide, infanticide and damning people to an eternity of torture how can you be expected to handle anything so traumatic as what this poor girl suffered at the hands of that evil Richard Dawkins. I know what will help: prayer!
Dawkins' answer is an obvious one. I've no idea why you would think it's illogical or offensive. He doesn't insult the girl, just points out that logically she should ask herself the same question. What's wrong with that?
@stephenfulloffaith The woman (Amber Moore) asked Dawkins "what if you're wrong?" Dawkins quite rightly asks "wrong about what?" he then goes on to point out there is no difference between believing in a bloke called jesus was the son of a god or a bloke called Xenu (Xemu) dumped souls in volcano's 75 million years ago, both have the same amount of credence (none)
I think you would need to expand on your "Dawkins is a FOOL" declaration to avoid looking a fool yourself
Doesn't matter what religion one belongs to; all christians, hindus, jews, muslims and all the other religion in the wolrd talks about one same entity called God. Why are you afraid to research the truth atleast as a real scientist would do?
@kriscool001 "Doesn't matter what religion one belongs to; all christians, hindus, jews, muslims and all the other religion in the wolrd talks about one same entity called God"
not true Hindu's have lots of gods, but you're falling into the trap of a thinking "I can't work out where everything came from, so it must have been a magic man" what does that answer? ?
@kriscool001 "Well, this says you know nothing about Hinduism! Please don't lock the omnipresent entity into a small box called christianity"
Buddhism Hinduism Shintoism are all polytheistic, next you'll be saying this "omnipresent entity" is also an omniscient entity, which, if you give it a moments thought, is impossible even if your god was real
Christian Intellectuals? Surely that's an oxymoron. This man obviously has no idea what Dawkins was saying. Has no concept outside of self, no concept of other faiths and faith systems.
What I hear from this speaker is akin to what I hear from imams when they feel a slight against islam was perpetrated.
Pascal tried to answer the "what if your wrong" question. What Dawkins said has the same credibility as any other idea. God is a figment of human imagination, he knows that, & he's not wrong.
Dawkins is only insulting if you're a moron. Trying to bring the <1% of people that change faith into the argument is also hilarious, what a prick this guy is. Guess what, Religion was created to explain the [then] inexplicable. That is why every culture on this planet has or has had a different religion, to explain what they could not. Now enter science, explain all of these things; and we still have morons like this running around...sigh. I guess it was God opening the hatches to make it rain.
Dawkins is obviously not a great intellect, but I don't think he's a total fool. I believe he has taken the opportunity to ride on the wave of the popularity of evolution and is laughing all the way to the bank. He's a sell-out and insincere about his dogmatism. I highly doubt that he truly believes what he preaches to an oh-so-eager audience who wants to abandon God so they don't have to answer to His moral requirements.
@jbooks888 You couldn't be more wrong, Dawkins was a huge intellect well before he got (somewhat lucratively) sidetracked by religion, he was a highly respected biologist and author before you even knew his name, he was made University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science for a reason, and we're talking Oxford here not "Dave's bible school & grill", are you suggesting evolution isn't a fact? because if you are you don't want to throwing words like "intellect" around
@jbooks888 "Well, maybe I should have just said what I wanted to all along - Dawkins is a huge turd with a mouth"
always say what you want to say, but you need to know the difference between what is true and what you would like to be true, otherwise you're no different to Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, although I'm fairly sure they believe very little of the spurious bullshit they spit out, but hey! there will always be (talking) snake oil salesmen while there are gullible people to exploit.
@hughjarrse In my opinion, for anyone to be considered 'great' they must be telling the truth as they know it. Dawkins knows evolution can't be proven, is only a system of belief, but he will not admit to it. Like I said, I believe he is a sell-out and is therefore not worthy to be called a 'great' anything (except turd, of course and possibly douche.)
@jbooks888 "In my opinion, for anyone to be considered 'great' they must be telling the truth as they know it. Dawkins knows evolution can't be proven" fortunately your opinion carries about as much weight in the real world as AIG, evolution is actually a better defined theory than gravity, because gravitational theory falls down at the very small and the very fast, I'm assuming you know what a scientific theory is? it's a device for explaining FACTS, and it's a fact we're related to all mammals
@jbooks888 "Nice speech, but the idea we're related to mammals is NOT a proven fact" if you don't accept that is a fact then there are no facts in science, think about the raft of proof, the mammalian skeleton, every bone in every mammal has a counterpart! even down to every mammal from a mouse to a giraffe has 7 neck bones, the proof for apes is even stronger, Apes 2 more chromosomes than humans, and it just so happens that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of the missing chromosomes.
@jbooks888 Creationists insist evolution is false and god made every things as we see it, then say "there's no death in the garden of Eden" without giving it any thought. A chameleon has a 2ft long spring loaded sticky tongue perfect for catching killing and eating it's prey, if it didn't evolve that weapon god must have "designed" it that way, but when does a chameleon need to surprise a leaf? and as you must realise there are 1,000's more evolved/designed killing machines!
@jbooks888 Creationists insist the appendix isn't vestigial, but an important part of the immune system, if this was true (it's not, but leave it for now) how come no one who has ever had their appendix removed ever suffered any adverse complications with their immune system? and to make it even more ridiculous the appendix kills millions of people a year through peritonitis, so even if it had a very specialized job that was only used rarely, the appendix kills more than it could possibly save
@jbooks888 What designer would think it a good idea to have the urinal tract pass through the prostate gland why would human sinuses drain from the top in humans, causing blockage and pain? quite obviously this designer of yours must favor four legged mammals as their sinuses drain from the front and so do the job, funny how humans would also drain from the front if we went on all fours and pointed our heads down, it's almost like we evolved from tetrapods! would explain our thin vertebra disks
no ,you totally missed it... he try to explain to you morons something like this....
if you live in country where "weed" is illegal ,and then you go to Amsterdam,-when you see people smoke joints there,you are amazed ,and you think they are wrong,but they think you are wrong-cause they are raised up to think that this is normal if you want to do it.... He just explain you same thing with religion in few words so idiots like you can understand it.... but he must be more simpler.....
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
Oh my fucking god! He actually calls Dawkins and Hitchens shallow thinkers and in the very next sentence proclaims it a judgment by god on our culture!
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
She offered a variation of Pascal's Wager which is a flawed argument from the start and she got called on it. I think Dawkins handled it appropriately.
I'm not a christian , but Richard has a very limited ability to change minds, and to brush questions off in such a rude manner , well that makes me think perhaps Richard is not as solid in his mind as he thinks he is !
You want to change minds, then talk using a kind and understanding language .
What about the CRUEL way Dawkins responds to a simple question? What he does is he uses emotive language to forestall anyone from actually questioning his argument. Further, don't you think it' a matter of supreme hubris for anyone (religious or atheist) to claim to know the truth about the ultimate reality? Modern rseearch into the brain has shown that all beliefs and even all cognitive models of understanding reality are actually models, and that no one has the brain to understand all.
what this guy fails to realize is that Dawkins actually did answer the question- subtly. both Dawkins and Hitchens often use subtle points and theists hardly ever get them. this guy asked the question "what if there is a god, how would an atheist respond?" he would respond by saying that there is little to no empirical evidence for ANY supernatural claims, and trying to prove the existence of one particular god over another to show that your god is the one true god, is absolutely ridiculous.
@fleadle34 that's exactly right, dawkins stated that whenever you leave your own environment you are transformed into something fit to your new environment. he said you instantly convert to another religion if you set foot into any non-christian country, thus your burger analogy is not flawed in the slightest way. bravo! likewise, he implies you instantly transform into a dinosaur if you set foot in a fossil museum. how stupid he is, silly dawkins.
@ac1th No he's not saying that. He's saying that you are BROUGHT UP i.e. grow up around 4-?? 10 years, you will probably adopt the religion of your country of birth. He is NOT SAYING if you travel to India you will become a Hindu,nor if you go to a museum you turn into a fossil. PLEASE try to understand.
@ac1th It is an amazing time in our history... The days are gone that you can get up in front of an audience and lie your ass off and not have someone document it in digital video. Now I can listen to Dawkins response, then compare it to the incoherent meanderings of "itsChristonabike". That is what you should have done before you posted this comment. Don't blame other people for the weakness of your religion. "itsChristonabike" you may not like what Dawkins says, but you can't lie about it.
@wondergundy That's an amazing response. I parodied an earlier comment in my post and really put some effort in it to make it look as stupid as possible, good to see it still comes off as genuinely religious.
@itsChristonabike Dawkins' answer to the question was a valid answer, because Pascal's wager is a ridiculous point. We've all heard Pascal's wager a thousand times.
And the answer to that comes in two parts:
1) What if you are wrong, and another god exists?
2) What if your god knows you only believed in them, to hedge your bets? Being omnipotent and omniscient, they should!
If the best question a theist has, is Pascal's wager, then they're obviously a moron.
@ScabeiathraxUK I know Dawkins answered the point, that's why I uploaded this video with the comments enabled, you see the original uploader disabled comments because he couldn't accept rational counters to his arguments, and after about an hour he deleted all the comments pointing out that Dawkins wasn't being insulting, he was answering the question. also "it's Christ on a bike"! does that sound like a legit god squad name? .... :o)
Sorry, I made the assumption the uploader was the speaker. And I've seen so many god squad names, that I assume pretty much anything with "Bible", "God", "Jesus" and "Christ" is one of them :P
If they're dumb enough to tell us Pascal's wager is a thoughtful question, they're dumb enough to have something ironically self-offending, without noticing :P
I hate videos with comments and ratings disabled or on approval only... the shield of cowards and morons.
@ScabeiathraxUK No egg on your face at all, all your points stand up!, I didn't want to make it too obvious that the person in the video wasn't the uploader because I wanted this video to attract the type of comments the original deserved, I only replied to your comment because it was addressed to itschristonabike rather than the video. in England "Christ on a bike" is an exclamation of incredulity, Take it easy matey!!
Now what u have is the GOD hypothesis. Ur assumption are as follows-
1) A GOD exists.
2) It is the Judeo-Christian GOD.
3) That GOD had a son- Jesus Christ(since jews don`t believe Jesus was GOD)
Now what u have to do to compell Dawkins or me to believe u is to tell ur GOD to show himself to us in person just like he did to u. If that happens in a controlled environment, then ur hypothesis is true. Otherwise, ur hypothesis is as good as the one of Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hope it`s clear now.
Just like gravity, evolution is a proven theory. Scientists made some assumptions on what genetic mutations should occur if evolution have to have happened. They simulated the process under lab conditions and indeed the predictions of evolution were verified by practical experimentation. Now it is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory. That is demonstrable in lab to everyone who wants to see.
Now Newton`s practical results did match the theoritical predictions. So, the hypothesis of gravity became the theory of gravity based on practical experiment. Now if the practical results didn`t match his hypothesis, then the hypothesis would have to be discarded though it has tremendous mathematical appeal. A problem that has compelled scientists to sidetrack some brilliant mathematical hypothesis because they were not found in nature.
Leaving that aside, First, let me explain the scientific method to u. In science u form a hypothesis at first by mathematical argumentation or logical pathways. For example, the hypothesis of gravity was developed by Newton and he explained it through mathematics G.Force=Gm1m2/r squared. Then he tested his mathematical equation in real life situation. He took two objects, measured their mass and calculated the force of gravity. If this numerical result matched with the one from eqn, eqn is valid
You know what- Dawkins wasn`t insulting. I`ve heard Christian apologists like Sham Shamoun, David Wood etc. who are constantly trying the colour other religions like Islam. So, what gives u the right to insult every other religion out there calling their propagators false prophets and what not, when u don`t allow any criticism of ur religion. That to me, is double standards at its best. Something that Christianity does very well.
The question, "What if you are wrong?", is an appeal to fear, and has always been the last verbal weapon of the believer, since it becomes obvious that logic and rationality are not on the side of belief. As such, it is insulting to hear it again and again. Dawkins response points out the hypocrisy of the argument, as it is applicable to any religion.
What would be the answer to "what if you're wrong?" It's not a question that can be given any deep or critical thought. Would you have been happier if he had just said "presumably I'll go to Hell" and left it at that? And how can you say he was insulting to his audience when you described them as "low-hanging fruit" and "mind-numbed". All he did was talk down to the girl because she asked him a stupid question. Maybe you ought to think more about the content of his argument before dismissing it.
The World being 6000 years old? I demand you to give me one Christian scientist, or one prophet from the Bible who thinks that way. I have read the Bible my whole life I have never found one verse in the book that says that.
What about your beliefs on the birth of our universe? I ask some of you guys what the hell caused the Big bang, and you simply say you don't know. Then again you don't even have proof to say that a Big Bang even happened.
@FongLin100There are many (American) scientists who are Christians (not Christian scientists) who proclaim a young earth 6-10,000yrs old, It has to be said that their scientific credentials are usually quite poor, Kent Hovind is one infamous example, but Creationism is fairly wide spread in the US, there was a famous case Dover, the big bang is the best theory scientists have come up with to explain an expanding universe, gravity contracts explosions expand, don't forget background radiation
@hughjarrse I have considered background radiation, gravity contracts, and explanding universe. I do not believe that is evidence at all since we do not even know that an explosion even took place to begin with.
On the issue of the world being less that 10,000 years old, I admit there are Christians out there who believe that. However I have never heard one verse from the holy book that says that.
@Fongn100 "I do not believe that is evidence at all since we do not even know that an explosion even took place to begin with" think about it, gravity's "job" is to pull things together, the only way to escape gravity is to accelerate beyond the pull of gravity, the universe is expanding if you consider this along with the fact that there is a constant background radiation signature it's difficult not to come to the conclusion of a big bang, because if there was a big bang, that's what you'd see
@FongLin100 If you think a god created this universe, why is it expanding? why does it need to be bigger?
It away's amazes me when people say "the universe is far too complex to have come from nothing, there must be a god" A god that by definition must be more complex than the universe it created, they have no trouble assuming that god either came from nothing or has always been here. Logically it makes more sense that the universe either came from nothing, or has always been here
@FongLin100 "I choose to consider the actual evidence in the issue rather than theories" I have no idea what that sentence means! I assume you're aware there is no empirical evidence for god whatsoever?
"We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that god says and does." - Martin Luther
@FongLn100 You're happy to accept that a "magic man" created the universe, you have no reason to believe this apart from a bronze age book by a collection of unknown authors that has been copied and translated 100's of times, again by unknown scribes/translators, when you say "Atheist should take into account the old Biblical saying of the "beam in thine own eye"." it's of no practical use, why the bible, why not Yijing or Ch'un Ch'iu? what makes you think the religion you grew up in is true?
@hughjarrse I choose to think of my God more like an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, rather than a simple magic man since I don't believe that things can come from nothing. My book is backed up by History and archeology as well as other ancient writing outside of it that actually support it, not to mention that none of those books contradict with eachother despite being written by many different authors. The reason why my faith is true is because of the evidence to support it.
The problem with the deliberately ignorant is not only can they not grasp the nuances of an elegant argument, they cannot even recognize it when they see it.
Most children are indoctrinated into their faith as children. Some choose it later, but would not have chosen it IF they had been born in a time when it did not exist. You can't be Christian in a time before Christianity was TAUGHT. You can't be a Jew before Judaism, or a believer in Pantheonic Greek Gods before there were any. Children are BORN without belief, and someone teaches it to them. So that is a credible argument. Converts were taught the faith they converted to. Period.
His answer is credible, as for respect the young woman's question was also disrespectful. Coming into the argument knowing she is "right", so, what if he's wrong? You have no apparent knowledge of the Teapot, Unicorn, and flying spaghetti monster origins or arguments, you should research those first before making a wide assertion that they are not credible arguments. By the way, Unicorns are in the bible, go look that up.
You point at an example of single muslims made christians and say, "See it's not based on where your born", like creationists point at a small gap in fossil record and say, "see, evolution isn't the answer".
The fact is dawkins used examples of birth because the statistics can almost always correctly guess your religion based on where you are born. Christians claim non-christians go to hell like catholics, muslims, and etc. do. As if our eternal soul is some freaking game of chance.
@fullmetal515"Immaturity keeps me young" If you prefer the illusion of youth to the dignity of intelligence, that's up to you, but that reversed baseball cap is a dead give away!!
So, you're saying that religion is distributed evenly, and not regional? Not sure you understand... look a map of the Earth, colour countries based on the religions predominate within, you will see that for example USA is christian, Turkey is muslim etc. If you are born in the USA, you will most likely be christian, if you are born in Turkey, you will most likely be muslim.
If this was not the case, we would see an even distribution of religions throughout the whole planet...
@hughjarrse furthermore I will not refrain from calling a prick, a prick just because there are bigger pricks out there. That does not justify it. And yes I am a prick too.
@hughjarrse fine he is not "very rude" He is a fucking rude prick asshole. Hell is a pagen carry over dogma. And if it was was not a set sense you know more about that chick than me I will concede that point to you and say instead, that the correct answer to "what if you are wrong?" is "what if you are wrong?" . Eat me.
@fulmetal515 "I find Dawkins to be a very rude man, however the question was weak, seemed more like a set up for explicitly so he could go on that rant" Two quick points, first "very rude" is a bit strong when you consider how many people will suggest to children under five that will burn in hell forever if you don't believe what they believe, and as for your theory that the question was stage managed, the woman who asked the question (Amber Moore) is a devout Christian from Liberty university
All Dawkins' did was demonstrate that he takes no accountability for his atheistic postion.
Tsuruta1 1 month ago
@Tsuruta1 "position," pardon the typo.
Tsuruta1 1 month ago
If the answer was insulting (which it wasn't...) then the question would also be insulting as well as it was shallow and dismissive of Dawkins' life work.
As for Dawkins not being a deep thinker - try reading some of his many books rather that judging him on the answer to such a feeble question.
(Comments directed at the video maker, obviously... I believe this is a reposted vid?)
SAHBfan 1 month ago
Look mate, Professor Dawkins is quite a clever chap. The clever part is that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what he is saying. It is in fact painfully clear to anyone with a normal level understanding and reason that what he says makes perfect sense. Not only does he state what he can be proven, but humbly admits science doesn't have all the answers yet. You don't have to be deep to understand evolution (for example) it's science, not abstract metaphysical nonsense.
gazthefunky39 1 month ago
GO WOTAN!!
gazthefunky39 1 month ago
Because people being easily indoctrinated by a bunch of religious people are a counter argument ?
ivanlagrossemoule 1 month ago
At 3:45 this muppet tries to claim that Dinesh D'Souza is a christian from a hindu background. He isn't. The clue is in his name, His family are Goans (a predominantly christian state in India that was previously a portuguese colony) and his name originates from catholic Portugal.
baldieman64 2 months ago
@baldieman64 Dr. White didn't say D'Souza was a Christian from a Hindu background, White pointed out the inane error in Dawkins' response of one's belief is by "the sheerest accident," according where one is born, which is nowhere near the truth. D'Souza is but one example, Pastor David Yonggi Cho is Christian and the pastor of Yohido Full Gospel, with the largest congregation in a country (S.Korea) that largely Buddhist.
You choose what you believe, not your birth or where your from.
Tsuruta1 1 month ago
Good for you for allowing comments. Really refreshing and brave.
curonevans 2 months ago
@curonevans "Good for you for allowing comments. Really refreshing and brave" actually this is a mirrored video, the original poster disables comments and ratings on all his videos
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse Ha ha. In that case it is "predictable and cowardly". I kinda though it was too good to be true. Cheers dude.
curonevans 2 months ago
there is just as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for your God. In a word : none.
hardinmichael1981 3 months ago
HOW is his answer insulting? SHOW me WHY you think it's insulting.
hardinmichael1981 3 months ago
I'm guessing you're a Christian? Dawkins is promoting truth.. through evidence.
He wasn't insulting at all. Try finding truth for yourself!
00000Me1 3 months ago in playlist Religion, Philsophy and Science
Sounded to me like the audience loved it.
Christian intellectuals?
Christian answers: It's God's plan. God works in mysterious ways.
Please shut up.
KarboNeTikz 3 months ago
forced into a religion is what he meant to say......
wcresponder 3 months ago
If anyone is swallowing this guy's argument I suggest you check the original source of this clip. It cab be found at the Fora.tv website.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
I'm not sure why anyone thinks this would be insulting. It's not insulting in the least, even on it's own. In the context of the whole discussion it is even more clearly not insulting. Your argument is not only weak and fill of irrelevance it's not even valid.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
He was right. You arent born a christian, but you can become a christian later in life. He is biased yes, but so are both sides. The issue is trying to come to a common level of understanding. Thats not always possible.
vidfreak56 4 months ago
boom!!!!! yo exposed!
madenew000 4 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
It is an amazing time in our history! Information is readily available to just about everyone in the world. Naturally, the exchange of ideas in a free society is going to foster the end of bronze age mythology. You seem upset about this....sorry! You can still believe and have your faith....you just won't be able to run things anymore...soon.
Thanks for allowing comments - rare for you deep thinking christians.
DarkHorse0863 4 months ago
If "deep thinking christians" think that Dr. Dawkins' arguments are absurd then it proves that they are not able to be analytical, critical thinkers. What is the definitian of a "deep thinking christian"? Is is someone who reads the bible and accepts all of its prescriptions without question because of the fear of going to hell?
SailingMonsoon 4 months ago
the trouble with youtube now is the negatives are not shown, so we cannot see how awful some are, you have nothing to say, you are an intellectual minnow, i just wasted time listening to you denigrate arguments most here agree with, so you have failed, all you are doing is looking like an idiot
sod youtube and not showing likes/dislikes any more
paranoidnutter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Its unfortunate that you were offended. Perhaps you may find this video enlightening and come to terms with your resentment towards Dawkins. Just type in "The Real God: An Epiphany" into the search tool above. Promise its not meant offence, just endure the 7mins to the end
Itzcozamahlotl 4 months ago
No it wasn't insulting at all
Rohann86 4 months ago
I don't understand why the response was rude or insulting. To start off with her question insinuated "what if you're wrong...and go to hell." Now that to me is an insulting question, because it assumes that just for not believing in a deity, I am somehow deserving of eternal torture.
I thought Dawkins handled it logically. To let her know that many various beliefs exist and hers is nothing special, it depends on upbringing and geography as much as personal choice.
pezzamange 4 months ago
There is nothing 'insulting' about reprimanding such an illogical and thoughtless question such as "what if you're wrong"
it seems that anytime anyone questions religion or points out a flaw it's suddenly "insulting" or "disrespectful"
if Richard Dawkins was talking about politics in his books etc he would be considered extremely mild, but because he's talking about religion everyone feels attacked and insulted because they think they're religious views should never be questioned. well fuck that
rememberthename33 4 months ago
Maybe one of the deep thinking christians could give us the deeply thought out answer they woud like to have heard, based, of course, on the one book that they've read. The speaker suggests that anybody who disagrees with his view of religion should not be given a platform......What next? Gas chambers for non-christians? It doesn't seem to take much to turn that cross into a swastika.
andyg2550 4 months ago
@hughjarrse In the origin of Man, there was a full complement of genes between Adam and Eve. Her name means "mother of all." So their offspring and for many generations can interbreed with each other. It becomes perverse millennia later when the genes are diluted to the point Moses had to underline, "don't sleep with your siblings!" I admit, though, this fellow takes cheap shots. He took one at Dawkins and takes one at Kent Hovind too. Get an education there, smart guy!
corioa 4 months ago
Feeling offended about anything is neither an intelligent argument. Next time have a counter argument.
mstereo 5 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 to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
If you really think deeply about religion and you actually bother to read the religious books from cover to cover and not simply cherry picking the bits you like, in Christianity's case 'the bible' then there is only one conclusion to be drawn by anybody who is capable of comprehension. Religion of any creed is a ridiculous and dangerous idea. The reason it survives anywhere is simply due to ignorance and laziness. What Richard Dawkins says is true enough for the majority and not insulting.
SpoonFeedThem 5 months ago
Dawkins gives deep critical thought to the subject constantly. Way to take a 2 minute clip and use it to act like this is how he always is.
jasonjon88 5 months ago
Your God kills babies orange shirt guy. Rationalize that!
cyasi 5 months ago
and by the way, whoever posted this video is stupid and arrogant...any serious theologian knows that there is unknown number of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so saying that christians think the world is only 6,000 years is a misrepresentation.
bull1504 5 months ago
I don't see why people make a big deal about this fool...He didn't answer the question. Answering the question "What if you are wrong?" with a "what if you are wrong?" is stupid. He is nothing but smokes and mirrors
bull1504 5 months ago
@bull1504 "I don't see why people make a big deal about this fool" maybe because he's one of the mos respected scientists in his field, and was a best selling author years befor he god sidetracked with a the god squad stuff, what did you want him to say "if I'm wrong I'll go to hell!" what would be the point in that? Dawkins just pointed out the idiocy of religion,
hughjarrse 5 months ago
@hughjarrse Right. He is a well respected scientist that can't answer a simple question and resorts to all sorts of mockery to make his audience clap. "He is a christian because he was born in a christian country!!" BUAHHAHA ...that was so clever!! lets celebrate!!
That was nothing but a bunch of fools gathered together and coming with dumb and retarded punch lines to make themselves feel better about their "Illuminati" status.
bull1504 5 months ago
@hughjarrse And by the way, since when does selling books mean anything? Isn't Governor Palin, one of the dumbest women in politics, a best selling author?
bull1504 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hughjarrse And by the way, since when does selling books mean anything? Isn't Governor Palin, one of the dumbest women in politics, a best selling author?
bull1504 5 months ago
WTF.........He didn't evan listen to the answer properly, Dawkins evan said he might be wrong. that shows he is more open minded than this guy.
Rohann86 5 months ago
The only "mind-numbed audience" is that of the happy-clapping tools who bobble along to the verbal nonsense of the orange-clad sky-friend worshiper. This guy whimpers about logic, then shuffles out his talking snake and invisible man..WTF ? The irony clangs like a church bell.
allieron 5 months ago
the fact that Christians like you find clips like this insulting is revealing - it shows that deep down, you feel that you deserve to be insulted. You're inviting it.. it's the same sort of self demolishing and weak nature that begs for a sky daddy to bow down to and read your thoughts
sidewinderxx 5 months ago
@sidewinderxx So your saying they are being insulted because they want to be insulted, and that they deserve to be insulted?
particle58 5 months ago
You have no idea what logic means, right? And you have no idea how when you say your beliefs are true that means you can't handle debate, right? Oh, the irony!
MrRafaelblock 5 months ago
ur a moron
tfady8 5 months ago
The flying spagetti monster is just as likely as any god.
Also, i disagree with most of the things you have said.
mostretardedawards 5 months ago
The FSM does actually explain all the things you say at around 3:00.
That's the entire point with the FSM - why it was invented - that it is a equally good (if not better) explanation to how the world is than any explanation put forward by any christian in history.
To me the answer "God did it" is effectively the same as saying "I don't know". That is the only way I can see it. Saying "I don't know" is at least intellectually honest.
I think that the question is more insulting that his answer
itsjustameme 5 months ago
She asked a rediculous question, that is insulting to his and our intelligence. Philosophically Dawkins is not sophisticated, he is an illustrious scientist thats why we know he is a great thinker. He is relevant because he specialises in the pragmatic argument. If you want philosophical debate go to Harris or Dennet.
You over simplify the opposition and place words in his mouth, his response was apt, your response to his response is full of holes.
mehico33 5 months ago
The answer was so easy it wasn't worthy of a deep thought.
If he's wrong, he's fucked, he'll get sent to hell and be tortured forever along with everyone who agrees with him & all muslims, buddhist, hindus, pastafarians, jews etc.
Dawkin's isn't praised for his depth or philosophical mind set. He's praised because he's honest, factual, straight to the point, clear & obvious.
Character assassination gets you nowhere in a debate about establishing objective truth.
MrLittletomdj 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 5 months ago
Unicorns and Spaghetti monsters are perfectly fair to use because they are just as real (provable) as Jesus and Noah.
The question- What if you're wrong- has a simple answer- It depends on what the 'right' answer is- .
Dawkins COULD be wrong and christians COULD be wrong at the same time, no?
nofaith13 5 months ago
He is merely pointing out that religious beliefs are very geographic and point in time sensitive.
My take is that he found that question kind of ridiculous considering the mountain of evidence he possesses on his side of the argument.
I believe that he prefers more concrete questions versus blanket questions which are abstract in nature.
AutoBahnForever 5 months ago
James White sums up not only the immature and childish worldview of Dawkins, but it pretty much is accurate in regards to "atheists" in general. There is not one person who's ever walked the planet that truly believes in his/her heart that God does not exist. The atheists "unbelief" has nothing to do with proof, but has everything to do with offense at God's moral standard. Even if God walked the planet again, the people that love Him would still love him, those who hate would still hate Him.
1776iscoming 5 months ago
@1776iscoming "There is not one person who's ever walked the planet that truly believes in his/her heart that God does not exist" that statement cannot be true unless you believe in Adam & Eve, because billions of humans inhabited this planet long before they had even questioned the existance of god or not, and if you insist Adam & Eve actually existed you're a con man or an idiot, you can decide for your self which is worse, James White makes a very good living out of idiots
hughjarrse 5 months ago
@hughjarrse
Sure they existed, unless of course you have proof they didn't. The bible is dead on with each and every historical event that scripture describes, including Jesus walking the earth. I remember 10 or so years ago, "atheists" were claiming King David never existed either. Like I said to the other person, God isn't hiding from anybody.
1776iscoming 5 months ago
@1776iscoming "10 or so years ago, "atheists" were claiming King David never existed either" funny you should mention King David, the bible says Jesus was decended from King David, but as we all know he wasn't Joseph was but we all know Joseph wasn't Jesus' dad, so the bible isn't quite "dead on" there! if Adam & Eve were real (I still can't ge used to grown up who believe that) then Seth must have had sex with his sister
hughjarrse 5 months ago
@hughjarrse Who's to say Seth didn't have sex with his sister? If evolutionists are correct, I highly doubt a lot of homo sapiens evolved all at the same time. More than likely it was only a few who then procreated. Those first homo sapiens might have very well been related. So even in that respect, I would think science probably might agree that Seth did indeed have sex with his sister.
jbourg333 5 months ago
@jbourg333 Of course evolved species inter breed, there's no getting away from it, but why would a god use a plan were a fully formed homo sapien would have to shag his own sister, it seems rather perverse to me
hughjarrse 4 months ago
@1776iscoming "James White sums up not only the immature and childish worldview of Dawkins" that's rather funny, can you think of anything more childish than "the magic man did it!" and can you imagine anything sadder than someone trapped in the attic of a house as the flood waters rise praying to their imaginary friend?
hughjarrse 5 months ago
@hughjarrse
I'm not sure who the magic man is, I guess you're talking about your "ancestor" that crawled out of a pond. God is not hiding from anybody, He's very real and His existence is obvious unless one is trying to cover their eyes and pretend He doesn't exist.
1776iscoming 5 months ago
@1776iscoming Your argument about morals is conceited. Meanwhile, please prove I don't believe in my heart that there is no god.
myzlac 4 months ago
@myzlac
Without God, an ultimate, perfect and holy judge, there are no morals. If the world existed in the manner that "atheists" believe it does, ie survival of the fittest, the smartest and most moral person would do whatever it took to survive, no matter what the consequence to anybody else.
1776iscoming 4 months ago
@1776iscoming You can assert what you want, but there's no evidence that people who believe in God are more moral than atheists.
Again, please prove that I don't believe in my heart there is no god.
myzlac 4 months ago
@1776iscoming Bullcrap! Morals arise naturally out of living in social groups, because cooperation is necessary for the survival of these groups. It starts with the bonding between parents and offspring, neighbor with neighbor, and extends from there. Also, I would be very careful holding up the bible as containing just rules as most of them are ferocious in the extreme, meant only to frighten people into obedience: the penalty for breaking any one of the commandments is *death*, btw.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
Unless you are an ancient Israelite, the civil and ceremonial laws do not pertain to anybody, they were fulfilled in Jesus. You will receive eternal death if you choose to deny Jesus on this earth, that is true. Denying to accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior and Him as the atonement for your sin is the only unpardonable sin.
1776iscoming 4 months ago
@1776iscoming Preach to someone else, you pompous idiot.
hznfrst 4 months ago
Doesn't the gentleman posting this video consider that the question itself may have been insulting to Richard Dawkins, a man who on a regular basis gets death threats from Christians? (Probably not).
What a cheap tactic it is to attempt to under-cut an intellegent man based on how he answered a question that is, quite frankly, a frustrating question to answer for an atheist.
Psychelectric 5 months ago
don't be upset baldy, at least your red polo shirt matches the rate bar. amazing
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
2:23
Christian intellectual? is there such a thing?
When i picture Christian i see a a grown up man/woman who still belongs in kindergarten
Why? Because i went to church a year and realised a whole lot of things about it.
Atleast in 2:34 there is this good window to explain that even the other christians consider the creationists to be dumb Fks Who simply means they agree with Dawkins.
And Yeah the Spaghetti monster is perfect to compare with the Christian god, its just as good of an explanation
TheGoatherdGod 5 months ago
While I respect your decision to not control comments and ratings like many pro-religious videos are, I disagree with the predisposition that Christianity is self-proving.
dotmadhack 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can see where you would think Dawkins crossed the line with his answer. When you build your life around a book filled with incest, pedophilia, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genocide, infanticide and damning people to an eternity of torture how can you be expected to handle anything so traumatic as what this poor girl suffered at the hands of that evil Richard Dawkins. I know what will help: prayer!
mjlgaard 6 months ago
Comment removed
mjlgaard 6 months ago
Comment removed
mjlgaard 6 months ago
LOLOLOLOLOL i can't take you seriously, sorry.
Suicidesn0wMan 6 months ago 4
Dawkins' answer is an obvious one. I've no idea why you would think it's illogical or offensive. He doesn't insult the girl, just points out that logically she should ask herself the same question. What's wrong with that?
happehaha 6 months ago 18
Ultimately Richard Dawkins ends his rant with a question to answer the question. Dawkins is a FOOL!
stephenfulloffaith 6 months ago
@stephenfulloffaith The woman (Amber Moore) asked Dawkins "what if you're wrong?" Dawkins quite rightly asks "wrong about what?" he then goes on to point out there is no difference between believing in a bloke called jesus was the son of a god or a bloke called Xenu (Xemu) dumped souls in volcano's 75 million years ago, both have the same amount of credence (none)
I think you would need to expand on your "Dawkins is a FOOL" declaration to avoid looking a fool yourself
hughjarrse 6 months ago
Richard,
Doesn't matter what religion one belongs to; all christians, hindus, jews, muslims and all the other religion in the wolrd talks about one same entity called God. Why are you afraid to research the truth atleast as a real scientist would do?
kriscool001 6 months ago
@kriscool001 "Doesn't matter what religion one belongs to; all christians, hindus, jews, muslims and all the other religion in the wolrd talks about one same entity called God"
not true Hindu's have lots of gods, but you're falling into the trap of a thinking "I can't work out where everything came from, so it must have been a magic man" what does that answer? ?
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@hughjarrse
Well, this says you know nothing about Hinduism! Please don't lock the omnipresent entity into a small box called christianity.
kriscool001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kriscool001 "Well, this says you know nothing about Hinduism! Please don't lock the omnipresent entity into a small box called christianity"
Buddhism Hinduism Shintoism are all polytheistic, next you'll be saying this "omnipresent entity" is also an omniscient entity, which, if you give it a moments thought, is impossible even if your god was real
hughjarrse 6 months ago
Christian Intellectuals? Surely that's an oxymoron. This man obviously has no idea what Dawkins was saying. Has no concept outside of self, no concept of other faiths and faith systems.
What I hear from this speaker is akin to what I hear from imams when they feel a slight against islam was perpetrated.
Pascal tried to answer the "what if your wrong" question. What Dawkins said has the same credibility as any other idea. God is a figment of human imagination, he knows that, & he's not wrong.
losghost 6 months ago
@losghost "Christian Intellectuals? Surely that's an oxymoron"
there are Christian Intellectuals, Ken Miller springs to mind, now creationist intellectuals IS an oxymoron
hughjarrse 6 months ago
Dawkins is only insulting if you're a moron. Trying to bring the <1% of people that change faith into the argument is also hilarious, what a prick this guy is. Guess what, Religion was created to explain the [then] inexplicable. That is why every culture on this planet has or has had a different religion, to explain what they could not. Now enter science, explain all of these things; and we still have morons like this running around...sigh. I guess it was God opening the hatches to make it rain.
Crisas31 6 months ago
Dawkins is obviously not a great intellect, but I don't think he's a total fool. I believe he has taken the opportunity to ride on the wave of the popularity of evolution and is laughing all the way to the bank. He's a sell-out and insincere about his dogmatism. I highly doubt that he truly believes what he preaches to an oh-so-eager audience who wants to abandon God so they don't have to answer to His moral requirements.
jbooks888 6 months ago
@jbooks888 You couldn't be more wrong, Dawkins was a huge intellect well before he got (somewhat lucratively) sidetracked by religion, he was a highly respected biologist and author before you even knew his name, he was made University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science for a reason, and we're talking Oxford here not "Dave's bible school & grill", are you suggesting evolution isn't a fact? because if you are you don't want to throwing words like "intellect" around
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@hughjarrse Well, maybe I should have just said what I wanted to all along - Dawkins is a huge turd with a mouth.
jbooks888 6 months ago
@jbooks888 "Well, maybe I should have just said what I wanted to all along - Dawkins is a huge turd with a mouth"
always say what you want to say, but you need to know the difference between what is true and what you would like to be true, otherwise you're no different to Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, although I'm fairly sure they believe very little of the spurious bullshit they spit out, but hey! there will always be (talking) snake oil salesmen while there are gullible people to exploit.
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@hughjarrse In my opinion, for anyone to be considered 'great' they must be telling the truth as they know it. Dawkins knows evolution can't be proven, is only a system of belief, but he will not admit to it. Like I said, I believe he is a sell-out and is therefore not worthy to be called a 'great' anything (except turd, of course and possibly douche.)
jbooks888 6 months ago
@jbooks888 "In my opinion, for anyone to be considered 'great' they must be telling the truth as they know it. Dawkins knows evolution can't be proven" fortunately your opinion carries about as much weight in the real world as AIG, evolution is actually a better defined theory than gravity, because gravitational theory falls down at the very small and the very fast, I'm assuming you know what a scientific theory is? it's a device for explaining FACTS, and it's a fact we're related to all mammals
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@hughjarrse Nice speech, but the idea we're related to mammals is NOT a proven fact.
jbooks888 6 months ago
@jbooks888 "Nice speech, but the idea we're related to mammals is NOT a proven fact" if you don't accept that is a fact then there are no facts in science, think about the raft of proof, the mammalian skeleton, every bone in every mammal has a counterpart! even down to every mammal from a mouse to a giraffe has 7 neck bones, the proof for apes is even stronger, Apes 2 more chromosomes than humans, and it just so happens that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of the missing chromosomes.
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@jbooks888 Creationists insist evolution is false and god made every things as we see it, then say "there's no death in the garden of Eden" without giving it any thought. A chameleon has a 2ft long spring loaded sticky tongue perfect for catching killing and eating it's prey, if it didn't evolve that weapon god must have "designed" it that way, but when does a chameleon need to surprise a leaf? and as you must realise there are 1,000's more evolved/designed killing machines!
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@jbooks888 Creationists insist the appendix isn't vestigial, but an important part of the immune system, if this was true (it's not, but leave it for now) how come no one who has ever had their appendix removed ever suffered any adverse complications with their immune system? and to make it even more ridiculous the appendix kills millions of people a year through peritonitis, so even if it had a very specialized job that was only used rarely, the appendix kills more than it could possibly save
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@jbooks888 What designer would think it a good idea to have the urinal tract pass through the prostate gland why would human sinuses drain from the top in humans, causing blockage and pain? quite obviously this designer of yours must favor four legged mammals as their sinuses drain from the front and so do the job, funny how humans would also drain from the front if we went on all fours and pointed our heads down, it's almost like we evolved from tetrapods! would explain our thin vertebra disks
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@hughjarrse btw, I like your screen name!
jbooks888 6 months ago
no ,you totally missed it... he try to explain to you morons something like this....
if you live in country where "weed" is illegal ,and then you go to Amsterdam,-when you see people smoke joints there,you are amazed ,and you think they are wrong,but they think you are wrong-cause they are raised up to think that this is normal if you want to do it.... He just explain you same thing with religion in few words so idiots like you can understand it.... but he must be more simpler.....
stakoko1975 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Oh my fucking god! He actually calls Dawkins and Hitchens shallow thinkers and in the very next sentence proclaims it a judgment by god on our culture!
fdasherv 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
She offered a variation of Pascal's Wager which is a flawed argument from the start and she got called on it. I think Dawkins handled it appropriately.
maggotballs 7 months ago 17
I'm not a christian , but Richard has a very limited ability to change minds, and to brush questions off in such a rude manner , well that makes me think perhaps Richard is not as solid in his mind as he thinks he is !
You want to change minds, then talk using a kind and understanding language .
fleadle34 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not insulting at all........
spinolex 7 months ago
Look it's pretty simple. If you do not want to be ridiculed, then don't voice ridiculous beliefs in public.
AMN200768 7 months ago
What about the CRUEL way Dawkins responds to a simple question? What he does is he uses emotive language to forestall anyone from actually questioning his argument. Further, don't you think it' a matter of supreme hubris for anyone (religious or atheist) to claim to know the truth about the ultimate reality? Modern rseearch into the brain has shown that all beliefs and even all cognitive models of understanding reality are actually models, and that no one has the brain to understand all.
76endurathon 7 months ago
This "response" is insulting. Insulting to my intelligence, and humanity as a whole.
samiherra 7 months ago
what this guy fails to realize is that Dawkins actually did answer the question- subtly. both Dawkins and Hitchens often use subtle points and theists hardly ever get them. this guy asked the question "what if there is a god, how would an atheist respond?" he would respond by saying that there is little to no empirical evidence for ANY supernatural claims, and trying to prove the existence of one particular god over another to show that your god is the one true god, is absolutely ridiculous.
EpicPhalure 7 months ago
This isn't a debate... It's some bald guy that feels offended his faith is a joke
axskifree 7 months ago
So if I go to Mcdonalds I would be a hamburger !
fleadle34 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fleadle34 "So if I go to Mcdonalds I would be a hamburger" you'll have to explain that "analogy"
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@fleadle34 that's exactly right, dawkins stated that whenever you leave your own environment you are transformed into something fit to your new environment. he said you instantly convert to another religion if you set foot into any non-christian country, thus your burger analogy is not flawed in the slightest way. bravo! likewise, he implies you instantly transform into a dinosaur if you set foot in a fossil museum. how stupid he is, silly dawkins.
ac1th 7 months ago
@ac1th No he's not saying that. He's saying that you are BROUGHT UP i.e. grow up around 4-?? 10 years, you will probably adopt the religion of your country of birth. He is NOT SAYING if you travel to India you will become a Hindu,nor if you go to a museum you turn into a fossil. PLEASE try to understand.
msg362 6 months ago
@fleadle34 @msg362 There you go fleadle, christianity is so fucking stupid that it's hard to distinguish actual zeal from over-the-top parody.
ac1th 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ac1th ???? What are you on about? You assume I'm a Christian?
msg362 6 months ago
@ac1th It is an amazing time in our history... The days are gone that you can get up in front of an audience and lie your ass off and not have someone document it in digital video. Now I can listen to Dawkins response, then compare it to the incoherent meanderings of "itsChristonabike". That is what you should have done before you posted this comment. Don't blame other people for the weakness of your religion. "itsChristonabike" you may not like what Dawkins says, but you can't lie about it.
wondergundy 6 months ago
@wondergundy That's an amazing response. I parodied an earlier comment in my post and really put some effort in it to make it look as stupid as possible, good to see it still comes off as genuinely religious.
ac1th 6 months ago
@itsChristonabike -continued-
Just because someone asks a stupid question, intended to provoke fear, and gets an offensive answer, doesn't make the answerer any less intelligent.
Dawkins is considered a great thinker for his answers to complex questions, not his answer to moronic, four-hundred year-old scare tactics.
Or did you think no one had ever answered that question before?
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@itsChristonabike Dawkins' answer to the question was a valid answer, because Pascal's wager is a ridiculous point. We've all heard Pascal's wager a thousand times.
And the answer to that comes in two parts:
1) What if you are wrong, and another god exists?
2) What if your god knows you only believed in them, to hedge your bets? Being omnipotent and omniscient, they should!
If the best question a theist has, is Pascal's wager, then they're obviously a moron.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@ScabeiathraxUK I know Dawkins answered the point, that's why I uploaded this video with the comments enabled, you see the original uploader disabled comments because he couldn't accept rational counters to his arguments, and after about an hour he deleted all the comments pointing out that Dawkins wasn't being insulting, he was answering the question. also "it's Christ on a bike"! does that sound like a legit god squad name? .... :o)
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@hughjarrse Egg on my face.
Sorry, I made the assumption the uploader was the speaker. And I've seen so many god squad names, that I assume pretty much anything with "Bible", "God", "Jesus" and "Christ" is one of them :P
If they're dumb enough to tell us Pascal's wager is a thoughtful question, they're dumb enough to have something ironically self-offending, without noticing :P
I hate videos with comments and ratings disabled or on approval only... the shield of cowards and morons.
ScabeiathraxUK 7 months ago
@ScabeiathraxUK No egg on your face at all, all your points stand up!, I didn't want to make it too obvious that the person in the video wasn't the uploader because I wanted this video to attract the type of comments the original deserved, I only replied to your comment because it was addressed to itschristonabike rather than the video. in England "Christ on a bike" is an exclamation of incredulity, Take it easy matey!!
hughjarrse 7 months ago
Pascal's Wager was presented and then answered. There are more gods than just the christian god. Way to miss the point though.
gortews 7 months ago
Now what u have is the GOD hypothesis. Ur assumption are as follows-
1) A GOD exists.
2) It is the Judeo-Christian GOD.
3) That GOD had a son- Jesus Christ(since jews don`t believe Jesus was GOD)
Now what u have to do to compell Dawkins or me to believe u is to tell ur GOD to show himself to us in person just like he did to u. If that happens in a controlled environment, then ur hypothesis is true. Otherwise, ur hypothesis is as good as the one of Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hope it`s clear now.
Sakib241 7 months ago
Just like gravity, evolution is a proven theory. Scientists made some assumptions on what genetic mutations should occur if evolution have to have happened. They simulated the process under lab conditions and indeed the predictions of evolution were verified by practical experimentation. Now it is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory. That is demonstrable in lab to everyone who wants to see.
Sakib241 7 months ago
Now Newton`s practical results did match the theoritical predictions. So, the hypothesis of gravity became the theory of gravity based on practical experiment. Now if the practical results didn`t match his hypothesis, then the hypothesis would have to be discarded though it has tremendous mathematical appeal. A problem that has compelled scientists to sidetrack some brilliant mathematical hypothesis because they were not found in nature.
Sakib241 7 months ago
Leaving that aside, First, let me explain the scientific method to u. In science u form a hypothesis at first by mathematical argumentation or logical pathways. For example, the hypothesis of gravity was developed by Newton and he explained it through mathematics G.Force=Gm1m2/r squared. Then he tested his mathematical equation in real life situation. He took two objects, measured their mass and calculated the force of gravity. If this numerical result matched with the one from eqn, eqn is valid
Sakib241 7 months ago
You know what- Dawkins wasn`t insulting. I`ve heard Christian apologists like Sham Shamoun, David Wood etc. who are constantly trying the colour other religions like Islam. So, what gives u the right to insult every other religion out there calling their propagators false prophets and what not, when u don`t allow any criticism of ur religion. That to me, is double standards at its best. Something that Christianity does very well.
Sakib241 7 months ago
It was insulting to the audience... that is why they cheered so much!
The rest of your arguments are really boring, because your starts that the Christian god exist, and then all the rest fall flat.
The great Juju monster at the bottom of the sea is every bit as real as your god.
VonVladimierVoltar 7 months ago
christians get destroyed by richard thats why we love him because he destroys ur argument
Tavor21Actual 7 months ago
The question, "What if you are wrong?", is an appeal to fear, and has always been the last verbal weapon of the believer, since it becomes obvious that logic and rationality are not on the side of belief. As such, it is insulting to hear it again and again. Dawkins response points out the hypocrisy of the argument, as it is applicable to any religion.
SpaceOdyssey56 7 months ago
What would be the answer to "what if you're wrong?" It's not a question that can be given any deep or critical thought. Would you have been happier if he had just said "presumably I'll go to Hell" and left it at that? And how can you say he was insulting to his audience when you described them as "low-hanging fruit" and "mind-numbed". All he did was talk down to the girl because she asked him a stupid question. Maybe you ought to think more about the content of his argument before dismissing it.
IsmashWindows 7 months ago
I suggest you Atheist should take into account the old Biblical saying of the "beam in thine own eye".
FongLin100 7 months ago
The World being 6000 years old? I demand you to give me one Christian scientist, or one prophet from the Bible who thinks that way. I have read the Bible my whole life I have never found one verse in the book that says that.
What about your beliefs on the birth of our universe? I ask some of you guys what the hell caused the Big bang, and you simply say you don't know. Then again you don't even have proof to say that a Big Bang even happened.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@FongLin100There are many (American) scientists who are Christians (not Christian scientists) who proclaim a young earth 6-10,000yrs old, It has to be said that their scientific credentials are usually quite poor, Kent Hovind is one infamous example, but Creationism is fairly wide spread in the US, there was a famous case Dover, the big bang is the best theory scientists have come up with to explain an expanding universe, gravity contracts explosions expand, don't forget background radiation
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@hughjarrse I have considered background radiation, gravity contracts, and explanding universe. I do not believe that is evidence at all since we do not even know that an explosion even took place to begin with.
On the issue of the world being less that 10,000 years old, I admit there are Christians out there who believe that. However I have never heard one verse from the holy book that says that.
FongLin100 7 months ago
@Fongn100 "I do not believe that is evidence at all since we do not even know that an explosion even took place to begin with" think about it, gravity's "job" is to pull things together, the only way to escape gravity is to accelerate beyond the pull of gravity, the universe is expanding if you consider this along with the fact that there is a constant background radiation signature it's difficult not to come to the conclusion of a big bang, because if there was a big bang, that's what you'd see
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@FongLin100 If you think a god created this universe, why is it expanding? why does it need to be bigger?
It away's amazes me when people say "the universe is far too complex to have come from nothing, there must be a god" A god that by definition must be more complex than the universe it created, they have no trouble assuming that god either came from nothing or has always been here. Logically it makes more sense that the universe either came from nothing, or has always been here
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@hughjarrse I choose to consider the actual evidence in the issue rather than theories.
FongLin100 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FongLin100 "I choose to consider the actual evidence in the issue rather than theories" I have no idea what that sentence means! I assume you're aware there is no empirical evidence for god whatsoever?
"We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that god says and does." - Martin Luther
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@FongLn100 You're happy to accept that a "magic man" created the universe, you have no reason to believe this apart from a bronze age book by a collection of unknown authors that has been copied and translated 100's of times, again by unknown scribes/translators, when you say "Atheist should take into account the old Biblical saying of the "beam in thine own eye"." it's of no practical use, why the bible, why not Yijing or Ch'un Ch'iu? what makes you think the religion you grew up in is true?
hughjarrse 7 months ago
@hughjarrse I choose to think of my God more like an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, rather than a simple magic man since I don't believe that things can come from nothing. My book is backed up by History and archeology as well as other ancient writing outside of it that actually support it, not to mention that none of those books contradict with eachother despite being written by many different authors. The reason why my faith is true is because of the evidence to support it.
FongLin100 7 months ago
The problem with the deliberately ignorant is not only can they not grasp the nuances of an elegant argument, they cannot even recognize it when they see it.
sailcat9 7 months ago
Most children are indoctrinated into their faith as children. Some choose it later, but would not have chosen it IF they had been born in a time when it did not exist. You can't be Christian in a time before Christianity was TAUGHT. You can't be a Jew before Judaism, or a believer in Pantheonic Greek Gods before there were any. Children are BORN without belief, and someone teaches it to them. So that is a credible argument. Converts were taught the faith they converted to. Period.
lebeaubastion 8 months ago
His answer is credible, as for respect the young woman's question was also disrespectful. Coming into the argument knowing she is "right", so, what if he's wrong? You have no apparent knowledge of the Teapot, Unicorn, and flying spaghetti monster origins or arguments, you should research those first before making a wide assertion that they are not credible arguments. By the way, Unicorns are in the bible, go look that up.
lebeaubastion 8 months ago
3:24 'rational explanation for how creation rises'
oxymoron right thar. Just thought I should point it out
wengsiang1 8 months ago
You point at an example of single muslims made christians and say, "See it's not based on where your born", like creationists point at a small gap in fossil record and say, "see, evolution isn't the answer".
The fact is dawkins used examples of birth because the statistics can almost always correctly guess your religion based on where you are born. Christians claim non-christians go to hell like catholics, muslims, and etc. do. As if our eternal soul is some freaking game of chance.
TheGhoto 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGhoto He even got that wrong, Dinesh Dsouza was born in a Christian family in India. He didn't "choose" to be a Christian. He was never a Hindu
hughjarrse 8 months ago
@hughjarrse hehe. You are alright by me.
fullmetal515 8 months ago
@hughjarrse your dignity and your intelligence, is as much of an illusion as my youth.
fullmetal515 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fullmetal515"your dignity and your intelligence, is as much of an illusion as my youth." I never asserted that I had either!
hughjarrse 8 months ago
@hughjarrse cry me a river. Immaturity keeps me young.
fullmetal515 8 months ago
@fullmetal515"Immaturity keeps me young" If you prefer the illusion of youth to the dignity of intelligence, that's up to you, but that reversed baseball cap is a dead give away!!
hughjarrse 8 months ago
So, you're saying that religion is distributed evenly, and not regional? Not sure you understand... look a map of the Earth, colour countries based on the religions predominate within, you will see that for example USA is christian, Turkey is muslim etc. If you are born in the USA, you will most likely be christian, if you are born in Turkey, you will most likely be muslim.
If this was not the case, we would see an even distribution of religions throughout the whole planet...
jdellio 8 months ago
@hughjarrse furthermore I will not refrain from calling a prick, a prick just because there are bigger pricks out there. That does not justify it. And yes I am a prick too.
fullmetal515 8 months ago
@hughjarrse fine he is not "very rude" He is a fucking rude prick asshole. Hell is a pagen carry over dogma. And if it was was not a set sense you know more about that chick than me I will concede that point to you and say instead, that the correct answer to "what if you are wrong?" is "what if you are wrong?" . Eat me.
fullmetal515 8 months ago
@fullmetal515 "Eat me" prick this, prick that, you sound like a 13yr old kid trying to impress a 10yr old girl! grow up for fucks sake
hughjarrse 8 months ago
stupid questions deserve stupid answer, unfortunately Dawkins didn't answer in a stupid way as he ought to
kwlokatastasi 8 months ago
I find Dawkins to be a very rude man, however the question was weak, seemed more like a set up for explicitly so he could go on that rant
fullmetal515 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fulmetal515 "I find Dawkins to be a very rude man, however the question was weak, seemed more like a set up for explicitly so he could go on that rant" Two quick points, first "very rude" is a bit strong when you consider how many people will suggest to children under five that will burn in hell forever if you don't believe what they believe, and as for your theory that the question was stage managed, the woman who asked the question (Amber Moore) is a devout Christian from Liberty university
hughjarrse 8 months ago