This isn't the genetic fallacy at all- since he did NOT say, "therefore the religion is wrong". He was simply pointing out that different people around the world think the exact same thing about a different God and that they tend to be based on the area you grew up in. This doesn't show that the religions are wrong, it shows they PROBABLY are.
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
So basically what he claims that that the things that science doesn't make any claims about because it science doesn't have anything to do with it, can't be scientifically proven..
Yes, neither can your bicycle pump predict the weather.. Your point is?
It's like creationists claiming that evolution can't explain the origins of life.
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.weebly.com
Science presupposes logic and math. So to try and prove them by science you would be arguing in a circle. So logically, religion must be right, because it isnt logical at all. God created the universe to appear as old, and appear to be guided by logic and mathematics because he wants to test your faith. Dinosaurs never existed, god just put fossils in the ground to test your faith and to show you that logic doesnt make any sense. Duh!!!@! How does anyone believe in science!?!?
The Genetic Fallacy argument is completely tangential to the girl's question and Dawkins' answer.
The strangest part is that Dawkins isn't trying to prove that all religions are wrong (at least in this clip). He's responding to the girl's "Pascal's Wager" argument by saying that it applies equally well to every other proposed religion.
You should be a Christian, or else you'll be tortured forever.
You should be a Muslim, or else you'll be tortured forever.
If he is wrong nobody has got any clue what will happen, because none of the religion have proven themselfes right, so we dont know which one is right.
Finally someone realizes. It amazes me that people want to say if you grow up in a christian home you'd no doubt believe in christianity. Studies show that most athiests grew up in christian homes and didn't like the moral restraints put on them. What athiests don't realize is that yes if you grow up in a certian religous home you are more likely to believe in that religion. Yet if you grow up in an athiest home what are you most likely to believe? ATHIESM!
@Naut What are you asking me to do about his response. What I think of it? What I think he's trying to say? What I would say to him? What are asking me about his response.
An ASSUMPTION that the speed of light is constant??? And that's why he's a philosopher and not a scientist. Thank goodness. Also, who PAYS a professional philosopher? They should seriously dock his salary for spouting such nonsense.
**Sighhhhhhhhhhhh** What if YOU'RE wrong? What if you waste years of your life performing meaningless rituals and attending Sunday mass for a false deity? if you truly are wrong,(and I am almost certain that you are) we have one life to live and you've wasted it on BS. Not only have you lived a meaningless life, but you've also proven to be a completly irrational human being.
@sofckingwat it seems to me that you have attended sunday mass and have not gotten anything out of it other than a belief of wasted time. I feel sorry for you because the mass you attended was probably not joyous but rather dull. However when you worship God in the greatest form: with sincerity, understanding of its importance and benefit, and in a joyous attitude (which is helpful with good music), you find peace and happiness because your intention is pure.
@sofckingwat After all, the lord said, “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” This beatitude refers not just to the chaste but to those who are pure in their intentions and in their love. If your love for God is pure then you will see just how blessed you are and you will not only see God in heaven but you will recognize His presence in and all around you.
@sofckingwat When you practice this for a lifetime, you will have happiness and it will lead you to be a good person. If God does not exist, then what have you lost? Nothing. Happiness is the goal of every human being and if you attain it then you have not lost. You’ve won.
No one can believe in Atheism. That's a strange way to put it. The way you put this video together is annoying. Like most Craig video I've seen. Craig says something clever and the video ends before his opponent can answer. Craig only cares about winning the debate. He cares nothing about truth.
Are you kidding? This guy is a moron. He brings nothing to the table and has no argument at all? Math cant be proven by science? MATH IS SCIENCE! math is one of the languages OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Dawkins would crush this guy - no contest. Hell I would crush this guy.
"it goes both ways" WTF?!? In atheist houses you dont get "FORCED" to believe in atheism, you just learn about religion and science and make up your OWN mind. Take Christopher Hitchens for example, his own daughter is religious! How come if she was "FORCED" to believe that all gods were BS? Obviously he didnt, she made up her OWN mind.
All five points were the same point which is essentialy philosophical and progresses the theory of the actuality of God in no way. What was the name of the debate meaningfulscience?
At no point did Dawkins say you are "forced" to believe what your parents teach. It is not an absolute, but it is very common for people who grow up in America to believe Christianity, and for people who grow up in India to believe in Hinduism.
This doesn't mean, therefore, that Hinduism is wrong, but if not, then Christianity must be. Or is it the other way around? And what about the thousands of other religions?
I agree with your first point. My point is that the argument Dawkins is using works equally well against his own atheism. How about you, are you an atheist?
that william guys read those things in a text book and recited them out. He doesn't know what he is talking about, look at his education....philosophy....religious studies...They ain't got nothing to do with maths or physics. He is not qualified to talk about that stuff cos he doesn't know what he is talking about. I bet if a mathematician or physicist questions what he just said, he won't be able to answer back.
Only because people prefer to watch short videos on YouTube. If you want to watch the entire W. L. Craig debate online you can. I recommend it. The section I included is the point of that part of the debate. It was a question and answer period at the end.
Actually, God does tell us not to rape. Jesus says not to even think about committing adultery, let alone raping someone. Atheists and true Christians do not establish their morality on the same foundation at all. An unchanging Holy God is at the foundation of my morality. A weak-minded, dying, bag of dirt (one of us humans) is at the foundation of every Atheist's morality. Do you disagree? Why?
I can't find the comment I wrote to which you replied to, but anyways. yes! I disagree. First of all you don't do everything god tells you to, and secondly My morality does not come from one person it comes from community. It comes from more than one person, and most of it revolves around the golden rule. Another thing I would like to argue is that humans are smarter than god because at least we are more humane than god ever was and ever wishes to be.
Just because something is the opinion of a group of people doesn't mean it's true or good. How do you judge which "community" is good and which is evil? And you speak of the golden rule with pride. Why do you think of the golden rule as "golden?" You are not being consistent with your atheism. You have no absolute standard. You are left only with personal preference, opinion, taste, of the same quality as preference for chocolate over vanilla, only a bit stronger. You see my point?
You do know what the golden rule is. Right? Because you almost implied that you don't. Now, I just told you how judge which community is good, but then you went ahead and asked me again. Did you not understand? Find out what the golden rule is and read the message I wrote before this again. There is no such thing as an absolute standard when it comes to morality, and any one who thinks there is, is evil. i.e. killing might be wrong, but killing some one like Hitler might not be such a badthing.
@TommyJ77 , what hittler did was wrong based on a kind of morality that is flexible. a kind morality that changes depending on the situation. If killing one person is all one needs to save the lives of many, then based on a flexible morality, the person who kills one person to prevent the deaths of many doing a good thing. I think you and I can both agree on this.
You are describing the philosophy of Utilitarianism. What is right is doing what is best for the greater good. ie, killing one person in order to save ten is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy.
It is agreed by almost everyone that Hitler and his action was absolutely and completely evil. But Why? If there is no absoute truth, what one person believes is just as valid as what another person believes. So Ghandi's peacful views were just as valid as Hitler's.
@TommyJ77. Ok now you're speaking from a position in which one can't be in. When you speak of absolute morality I'm guessing you your getting this absolute morality from your holy book. Without your holy book, you and I are both in the same position. What you're are forgetting however is that the holy book you're referring to also considers other detestable things as moral. You can't ask me questions in which you are not in the position to ask. I can easily take the position you in.
You said "The bible considers other detestable things as moral. What i dont understand, is how you can say that your thoughts and ways are higher than the God of the Bible, and claim it as if it is Truth. I mean, you can have an opinion of that, but i would like to know why you think that. Meaning, where do you get your morals from? Society? Mom and Dad? Yourself? which one?
And whatever your morals are, please dont claim them to be universally true, rather, just mere opinion which you cannot expect me or anyone else to believe.
@TommyJ77. Morality is innate in us. There is no such thing as an absolute moral giver or an absolute morality. It's all based on evolution. agreeing not to kill each other ensures that we can have one less thing to worry about, and agreeing to look out for one another ensures ones safety. There is no such thing as a selfless act, now that I think of it. people who give charity to the poor only do it to ensure that they will be helped if they turn out to be poor.
@TommyJ77 the only kind act performed in this planet is when parents protect there young, but thats just looking out for their genes. We agree not to steel from each other so that we can ensure that our properties stay safe. everything we do for one another is weighted. It's a give and take world, but you refuse to see that.
@TommyJ77. I can take the position you are in my just cooking up an imaginary being and claiming that, that's where my morality comes from. There is no such thing as an absolute morality. what you consider absolute, I consider an opinion. and stop pretending as if you know whether there is an absolute moral giver. stop being weired and just accept the fact that you don't know. good day
This is responding to your comment that said " I can take the position you are in my just cooking up an imaginary being and claiming that, that's where my morality comes from."
Well yeah, you COULD. and maybe i would recognize it as legitimate if your made up being performed many miracles, was killed and was resurrected - and hundreds of people saw this. When paul is writing in the bible, he cites these witnesses that saw this happen.
Elififa, Hundreds of people witnessed and attested to it.
@TommyJ77. Given enough time and large number of illiterates, I bet I can replicate a similar story like the jesus one. lets not forget that it was also plagiarized from stories that came before it. I'm of course assuming that you consider it authentic by the shear number of people who agree with you. on a side note. I know you have doubts about your belief, and every time you start doubting you usually start praying for jesus to help you overcome them. next message>>
@Elififa, There are no respectable historical communities which say that the statements about the pagan gods predating Jesus are true. There is just simply no evidence of those stories predating Jesus. This is not my quote, but the quotes of Historians who were interviewed in the documentaries Zeitgeist refuted. You can find them on Youtube. I suggest that if you watch them so you arent just following this false accusations blindly.
@TommyJ77. Did you say "no evidence" for my claims? really! I'm pretty sure you are wrong because I suspect that what you call facts are biased opinions from Jesus loving people. I can also give you authentic none biased, evidence based sights that suggest the contrary. But I won't do that till you ask for them. so I'm waiting.
@TommyJ77. How is this for a change; next time you start getting doubts, instead of suppressing them with prayer. How about you try to resolve those doubts head on. think about them, and try not to make up excuses for god (especially when you start thinking about suffering). I'm sure god can speak for himself using the bible. Oh yeah and another tip, look at the bible as a whole. Is it more peaceful than it is violent. Please do this and tell me of what you think. thanks
I promise you i DO deal with doubts.Sometimes, i dont wish to turn to Jesus and pray. Sometimes i want to look to the world for healing, and try to find happiness in getting drunk with friends, or finding a girl to hook up with.I promise you the World offers nothing but pain and empty promises. You will find no true satisfaction. When you feel emptiness from the world, I urge you to look to Christ. He loves you so much and wishes for you to just look to Him. Do it, brother. I am praying for you
@TommyJ77. How can you be so self centered? Not everything is about you. Why should the world care about you. The emptiness is not the world, it's in you. The world is an interesting place, and the more you learn about it, the more interesting it gets. I don't need to delude my self with stories (which I know in the back of my head to be false) in order to live a happy fulfilling life. The world is only painful to those who expect something more from it.
That is a common understanding of the bible in Todays times.People think that God is just so full of wrath. I Promise you that the Bible is not about this. God is a LOVING GOD! He Loves us SO much that he sent His own son whom He loved more than ANYTHING, to be tortured and killed by us, for our sake.Imagine that for a second.He Loves you so much.
The Old testament is all about Jesus, tho it is hidden. From Genesis to Malachi, all of the stories precursor Jesus Passion. Its about love not hate
@TommyJ77. I asked to you not to make excuses for Jesus, but you did just that. According to the bible; god is at most of the time an evil tyrant and of course at some times nice. now for a question, would you call someone who is at most times evil and sometimes good, a good person? Don't paraphrase for me a nice quote from the bible and tell me that god is good. what about all the other times he's bad.
@TommyJ77 yeah, god loves everyone, specially kids. I know.
how many children have been molested by christian church employees?
look at satanism for example, they teach you NOT TO HURT CHILDREN.
moses told about how rapevictims should marry their rapist. he explained how to own and use a slave properly, he teached me to kill my wife if she has fun with someone else.
Oh i think you may be confused about the Christian faith. See Christianity simply means "Follower of Christ."
Christ Loved Children, and would never hurt them. "Mark 9:42-If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea."
He also said That the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children.
Of course Christians are taught to "not hurt children" as you say.
Saribou Continued from before, Christians also believe that Jesus will heal any wounds caused by any trauma like rape. He is the Heavenly physician.
Also, Christians believe slavery is wrong. And we also believe that killing is wrong. If your wife is unfaithful, you may divorce her but Jesus calls us to Forgive her and pray for her out of Love.
Recall Jesus with the Prostitute. Everyone in town wanted to stone her to death, Jesus stopped them saying, "He who is without sin cast the first stone
Im sorry, i wasn't clear apparently. Jesus wants only to Help victims. He was pained immensely by their suffering. So Jesus, and us Christians would never tell a victim to "stfu, Jesus saved you." But rather look to Jesus for healing and consolation. Jesus would also pass His love through us onto other souls.
As for the children, or anyone for that matter who does not believe in Him, Jesus loves them regardless. He also gives them the choice to Serve him in Heaven or to Choose Hell.
I am completely certain that countless victims of any sort of trauma have been emotionally healed by Jesus. I am also certain that countless victims of trauma have been loved by Christians and been consoled by the love of Christ flowing through them.
How many non-Christians have raped? I would assume that people who are not being taught to love thy neighbor, and people who have given their lives up to service of Christ all for the sake of love are much less likely to rape others IMO
but if christianity can emotionally help, so do other religions. And i bet some are doing a way better job than christianity e.g. buddhism.
But in the end, religions wont help more than a handful of victims.
how many non christians have raped? Too fuckin many. But most of them are members of other religions (e.g. the krishna cult, which was only invented to raise money and rape children, like christianity)
@TommyJ77, what Hitler does is wrong because humans have realized over the course of time that in order to survive as a species, killing another human being without legitimate reasons is wrong. Even animals share this trait.
Elififa, this is in response to your comment that said, "you are assuming that you can know that there is an absolute truth, stop being weired and accept the fact that you do not know."
Dont you see the hypocrisy in this argument? It may sound humble to say "No one can know if there is an absolute truth. Its anyones best guess." Dont you see that you are applying an absoute truth to that statement? You are saying, It is absolutely true that you can not know. Well how do you know that is true?
This is responding to your comment "Without your holy book, you and I are both in the same position."
Yes! Without a being who is higher that us humans, I have no better access to truth than you or hitler for that matter. I get my access to truth from God. Without God, you cannot say that you have better access to Truth than another human being. So you CANNOT say that hitler was evil and be absolutely sure about it. You can have that opinion, but you can not claim that as Truth.
@meaningfulscience1 As a non-theist I respect very much the reasoning on W. L. Craig. It is essential for a real scientist to constantly question things. What however is wrong of you is to connect these perfect scientific questions to your presumption of the existence of a god. I really would like to know how this works in your mind.
@Elififa So are you arguing that we should all adheree to that morality that you follow, (the golden rule)? If so, why do you believe this to be true? And how can you say that this moral compass is any better than the moral compass of the next man? You do not know truth better than any MAN. That is why absolute moral truth can only come from a higher being. Without this higher being, Hitler's convictions are no better or worse than my own.
@TommyJ77. I believe the golden rule is a good rule because it makes us do what we don't do at times. It allows us to see our selves in others. It allows us to do the greater good. If anyone can come up with a rule that allows us to treat each other better. I promise you that the golden rule in my opinion will fall to second place. I almost sounded religious, but don't confuse my secular rational opinion with something that is said in your holy book. I'll be happy to explain some more.
Atheist have better morals than the very religious people. If God ask you, would you kill someone else? I would never kill anyone just because someone told me. I might kill someone if my life depends on it, but that's only self preservation.
One thing he used as an agrument was that you can't prove logic. And ofcourse you can't. It's like saying who invented the rules of the world? You can only prove how it works, not why it works. Or the other way arround, never both...
We all believe in laws for society to work, it's only logical and helps us understand. What the last guy says is a circular argument in it's self! So this guy is talking sh*t.
*Laws of any kind (relativity, physics ect.)
But the fact is besides this "genetic fallacy", Dawkins was saying - in context - that all faiths have the same evidence behind them, wherever you're brought up!
Watch my video, Real Science. Real Faith. to learn about who discovered electromagnetism (Faraday), the laws of electricity (Maxwell), the first computer (Pascal), etc. and what they thought about Atheism. Tell me what you think as a comment on that video.
This video cleverly left out the part where Dawkins sums up everything he had just said with, "What if you're wrong?"
His argument in this case had absolutely nothing to do with saying religion is wrong because how it came about. He was simply pointing out that just as easily as he could be wrong about Christianity, she could be wrong about Vishnu... and Vishnu might not be too pleased either.
That is not a fallacy. That is perfectly reasonable. If the God of the Bible is indeed real, and you reject Him, then you will miss out on everything you were created to experience, true love, peace, joy, satisfaction. Now whether you think there is more evidence for Vishnu or Jesus Christ is a separate issue. But there is no fallacy in her argument.
He explicitly states "why" she is a Christian, "because she has been brought up in a Christian culture." He says, if she had been brought up in India she would be Hindu, etc. This is what I am responding to with the Genetic Fallacy claim. And he is saying that this implies that it is baseless. He is explaining the religious belief away because of how he thinks it came about, what he thinks it is based upon. What is your religious faith? What do you base your faith on?
@meaningfulscience1: No. You are wrong. I'm not going to debate about it, you are just wrong. That was not his argument here at all. The only reason he says everything he says here is to build up to making the retort "What if YOU'RE wrong?" to point out the stupidity in her question -- something your video completely leaves out. You are committing the fallacy here, and it's called a straw man. You can easily find the full response to this question in the related videos section.
Oh yeah, way to go, disprove science and accept jesus as your god. I would like to send all ignorat christians to another planet just so they can apreciate how much are they gonna miss simple things that cant be proven like "Television" and "Mircrowaves" hey radiation is a lie! atoms are a lie! carbon based life is a lie! and pump action, leverage and other scientifical facts like gravity are all a lie! that scientifics can´t prove! the speed of light is a lie!.
Man, you need to calm down. Take a few deep breaths, maybe eat something, and then read what you've written. You are speaking nonsense here. Who gave us the basic laws of electricity and magnetism? J.C. Maxwell, a Bible-believing Christian who wrote hymns and was a deacon at a church he helped to build! See my video Real Science. Real Faith. for more examples of world-changing scientists who are men of faith.
What the science denier is saying; in a nutshell, is an old trick. Science can not prove anything because; I think therefore I am, but you may not exist at all.
Good...then why the hell should we listen to him, because he dose not exist.
I also noticed you cut off Richard Dawkins short of his actual rebuttal, which was What if I am wrong? What if you are wrong
I am not a science denier. See my video Real Science. Real Faith. for a ton of examples of scientists who make Dawkins look like a child that also believe in the God who made you. And I don't think you understand the argument I am making. Look up Genetic Fallacy in a dictionary and then comment again.
What Dawkins is actually saying is "what if one of these religions (which the girl pressumably thought were false) was right".
The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with this.... why do you even bring it up?
Furthermore, the technology that you use to watch this video is proof of the assumptions used in science and math. Science proves it assumptions, constants and existence through rigorous testing and scrutiny; unlike Lane's twisted beliefs, this stuff isn't made up overnight.
Dawkins was implying that the girl was only a Christian because she was raised that way. Therefore, her arguments will be invalid and unreliable. I was saying that the you have to judge a religious truth claim according to the evidence, not according to who said it or what their background is. That's what the genetic fallacy is all about. Look it up and watch the video again.
My bad, but I've possibly created a miscommunication here.
I do know the genetic fallacy, but I am claiming that Dawkins has not produced this. He is merely commenting on the ignorance of the Girl's statement, as she girl is presumably an atheist regarding thousands of religions and Gods.
Unless of course she is claiming a deist god; the fallaciousness of the Christian God here, would not disprove God (i.e. the genetic fallacy)....
Anyhow, this is all conjecture and beside the point, as he was not trying to disprove God. He was only explaining why, for his final comments, he was going to presume that she is a Christian.
I am claiming that you've taken this way out of context. Dawkins is only saying, that if he should be considering the consequences of whether he is wrong, then why isn't she doing the same.
That is all.... nothing to do with whether God is real.
" Dawkins is only saying, that if he should be considering the consequences of whether he is wrong, then why isn't she doing the same. "
See, he didn't answer the question - he turned it back to her instead. But she isn't the one giving a speech and answering questions. And Dawkins doesn't know if perhaps she IS DOING the same.
Even if she isn't "considering the consequences"doesn't mean that Dawkins as well.. thats a cop out.
Do all questions merit a direct response? Is it possible to have a question asked, that doesn't deserve a response? I mean, we're not in elementary school anymore, there is such a thing as a stupid question.
What did she expect him to say? "What if I'm wrong? Well, that depends on what I"m wrong about. If I"m wrong about christianity then I will burn for an eternity of torture."
The question didn't deserve the type of response, that I think you feel it did.
No, not all questions merit a response, which Dawkins could have said, instead he attacked her intellect "if you were born X you would be different.." which implies that her belief is based on indoctrination, and not reasoning.
I didn't say it deserved a response, I was simply pointing out that his answer wasn't an answer.
And it was also a legitimate question. In my line of work, if someone is building a computer to run an airplane - and they say it will work. I should be able to ask them "what if you are wrong". Its an important question for anyone making a claim.
Instead of saying:
"well then i guess i don't go to heaven" or something. He instead attacked her, assuming she was a Christian.
Maybe she was an atheist and wanted to know. But he avoided the question, and attacked the questioner.
If Dawkins admits that "anybody could be wrong". He is admiting that he could be wrong.
Her questions wasn't: "could you be wrong".
Her question was:
"what if you ARE wrong".
Dawkins avoided the question by pointing fingers at everyone else and saying "its not just me". Thus the argument has no value, it doesn't help Christians or atheists - so he shouldn't bring it up.
He was pointing out that the question itself is useless. Yes, Dawkins could be wrong about christianity, he could be wrong about Islam, he could be wrong about Buddhism, he could be wrong about the celestial teapot.
We could all be wrong about thousands of religious beliefs, so why on Earth would someone ask him "What if you're wrong"?
this is an interesting and fruitful discussion you have had. thanks a lot. please watch my other videos, real science real faith, and science is not atheism.
Exactly. If we want to grow as a species, it's time to stop believing in the supernatural and start using all of that free time to encourage personal and societal growth.
Why grow as a species? Why use our free time for personal and societal growth? Atheism cannot serve as a foundation for your moral claims. "Without God all things are permissible."
Are you suggesting that without God, we would have no morals? If so, how completely ignorant. If you really wanted to live by the morals in the bible, you should be out stoning homosexuals, misbehaving teenagers, women that aren't virgins until marriage, any (all) men that masturbate. Idiocy. Have you even READ the bible?
What I am saying is that you, as an Atheist, cannot say that raping women is truly and absolutely evil. You can only say that you feel very strong distaste for it. You have no absolute standard to base your morality upon. I believe that God made man in His own image, and that includes our inborn sense of wrong and right. What do you think of that?
@meaningfulscience1 sure I can. The only thing i cant say is, that you would get punished by someone way bigger than you for all eternity.
Our "inborn sense of wrong and right" goes with our intelligence. You are able to imagine yourself as someone else, and therefor can think about the impact your actions may have to someone else, which leads to "do i want that to happen to me"
furthermore our society grew big and needed rules of behaviour. (like every society, even animalgroups, need or just have them).
Thats were laws come in handy. They are thought out pretty well to ensure everyone respect oneanother and no one needs to get harm, while everyone still can say what they want and be free. If not, they get resocialised, means teached in behaviour.
too bad laws are broken so often.
other question, if we are in gods image, why are we still doing bad things?
We are still doing bad things because we are in rebellion against being in God's own image. We want to make God in our own image. We want to worship ourselves and decide what we think is best for ourselves, rather than worship and serve Him and allow Him to decide what is best for us. How about you? Can you relate to this at all?
According to your atheism, why is it wrong to rape and impregnate a beautiful, healthy, young woman if you have good reason to believe that you won't be caught or punished? This is the situation for most rapes in the world. Men doing it because they know they can get away with it. It seems that would spread your Atheistic genes around and help them to survive more than avoiding the opportunity because it feels wrong.
First, an atheist can do what is right, but he will not have a solid foundation for doing it. A Christian has a solid foundation for his morality, even if he doesn't always live by it. Second, war is not always evil. Defending the defenseless when they are being attacked is a good and righteous thing. I am not saying that every war the U.S. has fought in has been a just war. And staying out of every war is not always a good thing. At times it can mean cowardice or inconsideration.
Can you really point to that of being the cause? There is not a causal link between waging war and religion in this scenario.. there are MANY other causes for wars. It might though apply as a contributor of wars, I can definitely agree with that.. Something like the Palestinian-Israel conflict can apply directly as a major contributor of the war, fueling the fire with disagreement between the two nations, though this alone did not justify for the war.
@fearfulmatrix I agree, many other reasons for waging war than religion. But all too often religion are used to mandate atrocities. Indeed the christians favourite "atheist" warmonger, Hitler was a believing catholic and according to his book "mein kampf" was on a mission from god. Killing the christ-killers.
I'm not saying we would'nt have any wars without religion, but some could have been avoided.
Normal sane people will do the most wicked evil things if they believe god's in their corner.
God does not justify murder. People that claim god justify murder. That's something that is very clear on all religious accounts... Not even Nietzsche, the creator of Hitler's philosophy mandate for the killing of Jews. It was the psychopathic ideological nonsense that Hitler spouted about. Just because people use it for the wrongdoing of elites and interest groups does not make it an all-evil cause.
I cannot disagree with that. This is one of the things that I despise about religion. Despite that, the only reason that the bible contains those IS because it was manipulated by men. The church would be the first one's to admit that, otherwise most would just dissent due to their own contradictions. Many interpretations arise as well, due to translations and points of view. But this should never be dismissed by any church relying on the bible.
Yes, you are talking about secular humanist morality. How do we obtain it. We learn it from our mothers and fathers, we learn it from our mentors and heroes. Where did they get it from? It is more likely that they obtained it out of a God's mouth. So clearly the link between "God" and morality cannot be dismissed. I have doubts about God, but I do not question very much the moral teachings of the church. You think of the ills, but you also have to recognize the good about religion.
@fearfulmatrix Sure, there's god and bad in the bible I agree. But that's just a very strong indication that gods do not exist.
Using our innate modern morals and ethics both you and I would need no more than 5 minutes to rewrite and greatly improve the ten commendments. Surely an all powerfull, all knowing deity would have done a better job than that.
The bible is exactly as filled with, good , bad, contradictions and fallacies as one would expect if it had been written by an evolved mammal.
Not even the wisest men on earth had their morals straight and set. Socrates, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and many other philosophers all struggled with it in their lives till the very end. So to say that we would have it figured out is an outright absurdity. Most would agree that Yes, the Ten commandments don't suffice, but in all cases the church establishes a sense of need for good and love, which is what the atheist movements lack. A system of morals is necessary.
@fearfulmatrix I'm not going to defend calims I did'nt make.
Never said that modern morals are straight and set. They have evolved along with humans and will hopefully continue to do so. It is the religious beliefs that are frozen in time,
The ten commandments is not just unsufficial.
God saw fit to use 4 of 10 to talk about himself, not leaving room for other matters.
Only a selfcentered egomaniac would do that, not an all powerfull all knowing deity.
@fearfulmatrix The bible is not being misused by the fanatics. Read and you.ll see that they actually are the more precise followers of the BS that's in it. Modern christians have to ignore half of what's in the old testamente, not to break the law on a daily basis.
In turn, I must ask one question about your criticism.. Are you more against religion? or rather are you against the acceptance of a transcendental world, or spiritualism (as people call it now)?
@fearfulmatrix I consider myself a spiritual person, indeed I have had some personal indications that there might be an afterlife. But thats my personal belief without and I have zero evidence for it so I keep it to my self.
If religious people could do the same we wouldnt have a problem, but they cant. Their holy books commands them to Prostaletize. Open a tv or historybook to see what misery that has caused all over the world.
Im not against religion, I absolutely despise it as the evil it is.
I agree with you when you say all humans know what is right and wrong. I disagree with you when you say we don't need God as a standard for good and evil. You are virtually alone on that one, man. What do you base your claim on? Why do you believe that?
Like Dostoevski famously said, "Without God all things are permissible." Experience and reason are morally neutral, so they aren't going to be a source. Compassion can be an appropriate moral response, but not always. Basically, there are these passions and feelings that we all experience and that need to be played like piano keys at the appropriate times. The keys don't tell you which to play and when. You need something outside the keys, sheet music. This is what God's Law is.
Are you an atheist? If so, what standard do you use to call the God of the Bible evil? What do you base your "good moral standards" on? You say the human mind, but what does that mean? Humans think and justify all kinds of horrible things with the same mind they use to love. What is the standard that tells you which thoughts to strengthen and obey vs which to snuff out and ignore? I recommend reading Romans chapter 2 (it's a passage from the Bible.)
No worse blind than the one who doesn't want to see.
Even if science is sometimes wrong, it's our most reliable source of knowledge.
If just these people would see what a logic, simple and beautiful universe science presents us, they wouldn't need to believe in a god.
Religion did had a purpose and has already accomplished it. We have science now. We don't need to be told that god is mad when it doesn't rain in our crops.
Do you use science to learn mathematical truths? Logic? Ethics? No. Science is not all-powerful. It's only one tool in the toolbox for learning about who we are and what we're doing here. See my video, "Science Is Not Atheism."
so if we find a way to make crops grow much better using chemicals. do we have faith in it? we can observe the crops growing better then the crops without it.
about the faith in senses thing, if someone was to all of a sudden blink into existence he probably wouldnt trust his senses much. after a while using observations he would trust his senses because they are consistent and can make predictions.
You bypassed the question. Our minds and our senses are believed by faith. We know physical reality on the basis of faith. it is the same faith by which a person know the love of God.
Atheism and every other worldview is based on faith.
Atheism by faith believes that matter is greater than mind.
Christianity teaches that mind is greater than matter.
This isn't the genetic fallacy at all- since he did NOT say, "therefore the religion is wrong". He was simply pointing out that different people around the world think the exact same thing about a different God and that they tend to be based on the area you grew up in. This doesn't show that the religions are wrong, it shows they PROBABLY are.
GodTheHypothesis 2 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
This has been flagged as spam show
So basically what he claims that that the things that science doesn't make any claims about because it science doesn't have anything to do with it, can't be scientifically proven..
Yes, neither can your bicycle pump predict the weather.. Your point is?
It's like creationists claiming that evolution can't explain the origins of life.
tiaxanderson 4 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.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
put down the fucking bible and your gun and pick up a science book
HPhenomenal 9 months ago
Science presupposes logic and math. So to try and prove them by science you would be arguing in a circle. So logically, religion must be right, because it isnt logical at all. God created the universe to appear as old, and appear to be guided by logic and mathematics because he wants to test your faith. Dinosaurs never existed, god just put fossils in the ground to test your faith and to show you that logic doesnt make any sense. Duh!!!@! How does anyone believe in science!?!?
Michaelstorie 10 months ago
@Michaelstorie Your throwing out quite a strawman.
Jones103103 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jones103103 That's not a strawman, it's a strawdinosaur xD
tiaxanderson 4 months ago
the mostest simplestest questionest to answerest
JohnF30Music 10 months ago
The Genetic Fallacy argument is completely tangential to the girl's question and Dawkins' answer.
The strangest part is that Dawkins isn't trying to prove that all religions are wrong (at least in this clip). He's responding to the girl's "Pascal's Wager" argument by saying that it applies equally well to every other proposed religion.
You should be a Christian, or else you'll be tortured forever.
You should be a Muslim, or else you'll be tortured forever.
You should be a Hindu...
Wiccan...
NamesForDogs 11 months ago
Richard rules !! :D
troydzynek 11 months ago
If he is wrong nobody has got any clue what will happen, because none of the religion have proven themselfes right, so we dont know which one is right.
gulbirk 1 year ago
Finally someone realizes. It amazes me that people want to say if you grow up in a christian home you'd no doubt believe in christianity. Studies show that most athiests grew up in christian homes and didn't like the moral restraints put on them. What athiests don't realize is that yes if you grow up in a certian religous home you are more likely to believe in that religion. Yet if you grow up in an athiest home what are you most likely to believe? ATHIESM!
Reservoirdogs101 1 year ago
@Reservoirdogs101
i'm curious, how would you explain dawkin's response?
Naut 1 year ago
@Naut What are you asking me to do about his response. What I think of it? What I think he's trying to say? What I would say to him? What are asking me about his response.
Reservoirdogs101 1 year ago
An ASSUMPTION that the speed of light is constant??? And that's why he's a philosopher and not a scientist. Thank goodness. Also, who PAYS a professional philosopher? They should seriously dock his salary for spouting such nonsense.
rudolphsteinkampf 1 year ago 6
@rudolphsteinkampf
E = MC^2
C = Constant (constant speed of light)
neo12neo 11 months ago
@rudolphsteinkampf It is an assumption.
TheHumpadump 10 months ago
@rudolphsteinkampf So, why is he(Craig) wrong? Who pays for a Philosopher? You do with your tuition(if you even go to school).
jclarkviar 9 months ago
@rudolphsteinkampf
Can you explain why he's wrong? I would like to know.
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
**Sighhhhhhhhhhhh** What if YOU'RE wrong? What if you waste years of your life performing meaningless rituals and attending Sunday mass for a false deity? if you truly are wrong,(and I am almost certain that you are) we have one life to live and you've wasted it on BS. Not only have you lived a meaningless life, but you've also proven to be a completly irrational human being.
sofckingwat 1 year ago
@sofckingwat it seems to me that you have attended sunday mass and have not gotten anything out of it other than a belief of wasted time. I feel sorry for you because the mass you attended was probably not joyous but rather dull. However when you worship God in the greatest form: with sincerity, understanding of its importance and benefit, and in a joyous attitude (which is helpful with good music), you find peace and happiness because your intention is pure.
ABluFuture 1 year ago
@sofckingwat After all, the lord said, “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” This beatitude refers not just to the chaste but to those who are pure in their intentions and in their love. If your love for God is pure then you will see just how blessed you are and you will not only see God in heaven but you will recognize His presence in and all around you.
ABluFuture 1 year ago
@ABluFuture Really? See God in inanimate objects around you? This is self-induced cognitive dissociation and delusion, or a drugless high.
nightvidcole 11 months ago
@sofckingwat When you practice this for a lifetime, you will have happiness and it will lead you to be a good person. If God does not exist, then what have you lost? Nothing. Happiness is the goal of every human being and if you attain it then you have not lost. You’ve won.
ABluFuture 1 year ago
@ABluFuture Really? Religion makes you a better or happier person? And deluding yourself into superstition is worth it?
nightvidcole 11 months ago
Comment removed
sofckingwat 1 year ago
No one can believe in Atheism. That's a strange way to put it. The way you put this video together is annoying. Like most Craig video I've seen. Craig says something clever and the video ends before his opponent can answer. Craig only cares about winning the debate. He cares nothing about truth.
estragon9 1 year ago
Are you kidding? This guy is a moron. He brings nothing to the table and has no argument at all? Math cant be proven by science? MATH IS SCIENCE! math is one of the languages OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Dawkins would crush this guy - no contest. Hell I would crush this guy.
marKism69 1 year ago
Hahaha the guy in the beige suit has a blank stare most of the video and he's like "oh crap"
cortem762 1 year ago
What do ALL atheists have in common? They ALL made up their OWN mind! They were not "FORCED" as you would like to think.
wearsil09 1 year ago
@wearsil09 Haha, and how do you account for the former atheists that decide to turn to faith?
RealBloppy 1 year ago
"it goes both ways" WTF?!? In atheist houses you dont get "FORCED" to believe in atheism, you just learn about religion and science and make up your OWN mind. Take Christopher Hitchens for example, his own daughter is religious! How come if she was "FORCED" to believe that all gods were BS? Obviously he didnt, she made up her OWN mind.
wearsil09 1 year ago
I wasnt forced to anything, I just have common sense.....
grubashu 1 year ago
this is just clips of edited material that makes anyone trying to justify religion... look stupider.
Pearlcussion 1 year ago
All five points were the same point which is essentialy philosophical and progresses the theory of the actuality of God in no way. What was the name of the debate meaningfulscience?
coolioto 1 year ago
A few interesting points... but why was it cut out at the end? Why can't we see the rebuttal?
yureeka 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins dodges this question by a mile! Thanks for posting this. Indeed, Dawkins made the genetic fallacy.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
At no point did Dawkins say you are "forced" to believe what your parents teach. It is not an absolute, but it is very common for people who grow up in America to believe Christianity, and for people who grow up in India to believe in Hinduism.
This doesn't mean, therefore, that Hinduism is wrong, but if not, then Christianity must be. Or is it the other way around? And what about the thousands of other religions?
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
I agree with your first point. My point is that the argument Dawkins is using works equally well against his own atheism. How about you, are you an atheist?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
"the argument Dawkins is using works equally well against his own atheism."
How so? The burden of proof is on the one claiming that a certain god exists. Atheists are not making any such claim.
(yes, I'm an atheist)
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
that william guys read those things in a text book and recited them out. He doesn't know what he is talking about, look at his education....philosophy....religious studies...They ain't got nothing to do with maths or physics. He is not qualified to talk about that stuff cos he doesn't know what he is talking about. I bet if a mathematician or physicist questions what he just said, he won't be able to answer back.
roggy12345 2 years ago
1. Don't you learn from reading books?
2. Philosophy is the very subject at hand.
3. You are committing the genetic fallacy yourself by criticizing the source of an argument instead of taking on the argument itself.
4. the guys he is debating is a PhD, chemistry prof from Oxford.
I recommend you watch the whole debate. It's quite good.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
This video is unbelievably stupid.
Evanwebster 2 years ago
What do you mean?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
why did you cut the video short? They didn't get to the point, it was just a few minutes with ranting about...
sawman85 2 years ago
Only because people prefer to watch short videos on YouTube. If you want to watch the entire W. L. Craig debate online you can. I recommend it. The section I included is the point of that part of the debate. It was a question and answer period at the end.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Comment removed
zevenkamp 1 year ago
Actually, God does tell us not to rape. Jesus says not to even think about committing adultery, let alone raping someone. Atheists and true Christians do not establish their morality on the same foundation at all. An unchanging Holy God is at the foundation of my morality. A weak-minded, dying, bag of dirt (one of us humans) is at the foundation of every Atheist's morality. Do you disagree? Why?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
I can't find the comment I wrote to which you replied to, but anyways. yes! I disagree. First of all you don't do everything god tells you to, and secondly My morality does not come from one person it comes from community. It comes from more than one person, and most of it revolves around the golden rule. Another thing I would like to argue is that humans are smarter than god because at least we are more humane than god ever was and ever wishes to be.
Elififa 2 years ago
Just because something is the opinion of a group of people doesn't mean it's true or good. How do you judge which "community" is good and which is evil? And you speak of the golden rule with pride. Why do you think of the golden rule as "golden?" You are not being consistent with your atheism. You have no absolute standard. You are left only with personal preference, opinion, taste, of the same quality as preference for chocolate over vanilla, only a bit stronger. You see my point?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
You do know what the golden rule is. Right? Because you almost implied that you don't. Now, I just told you how judge which community is good, but then you went ahead and asked me again. Did you not understand? Find out what the golden rule is and read the message I wrote before this again. There is no such thing as an absolute standard when it comes to morality, and any one who thinks there is, is evil. i.e. killing might be wrong, but killing some one like Hitler might not be such a badthing.
Elififa 2 years ago
If there is no absolute moral standard, then there is no way to judge Hitler as evil. He then simply has a differing view of the world than others.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77 , what hittler did was wrong based on a kind of morality that is flexible. a kind morality that changes depending on the situation. If killing one person is all one needs to save the lives of many, then based on a flexible morality, the person who kills one person to prevent the deaths of many doing a good thing. I think you and I can both agree on this.
Elififa 1 year ago
You are describing the philosophy of Utilitarianism. What is right is doing what is best for the greater good. ie, killing one person in order to save ten is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy.
It is agreed by almost everyone that Hitler and his action was absolutely and completely evil. But Why? If there is no absoute truth, what one person believes is just as valid as what another person believes. So Ghandi's peacful views were just as valid as Hitler's.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. Ok now you're speaking from a position in which one can't be in. When you speak of absolute morality I'm guessing you your getting this absolute morality from your holy book. Without your holy book, you and I are both in the same position. What you're are forgetting however is that the holy book you're referring to also considers other detestable things as moral. You can't ask me questions in which you are not in the position to ask. I can easily take the position you in.
Elififa 1 year ago
You said "The bible considers other detestable things as moral. What i dont understand, is how you can say that your thoughts and ways are higher than the God of the Bible, and claim it as if it is Truth. I mean, you can have an opinion of that, but i would like to know why you think that. Meaning, where do you get your morals from? Society? Mom and Dad? Yourself? which one?
TommyJ77 1 year ago
And whatever your morals are, please dont claim them to be universally true, rather, just mere opinion which you cannot expect me or anyone else to believe.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. Morality is innate in us. There is no such thing as an absolute moral giver or an absolute morality. It's all based on evolution. agreeing not to kill each other ensures that we can have one less thing to worry about, and agreeing to look out for one another ensures ones safety. There is no such thing as a selfless act, now that I think of it. people who give charity to the poor only do it to ensure that they will be helped if they turn out to be poor.
Elififa 1 year ago
@TommyJ77 the only kind act performed in this planet is when parents protect there young, but thats just looking out for their genes. We agree not to steel from each other so that we can ensure that our properties stay safe. everything we do for one another is weighted. It's a give and take world, but you refuse to see that.
Elififa 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. I can take the position you are in my just cooking up an imaginary being and claiming that, that's where my morality comes from. There is no such thing as an absolute morality. what you consider absolute, I consider an opinion. and stop pretending as if you know whether there is an absolute moral giver. stop being weired and just accept the fact that you don't know. good day
Elififa 1 year ago
This is responding to your comment that said " I can take the position you are in my just cooking up an imaginary being and claiming that, that's where my morality comes from."
Well yeah, you COULD. and maybe i would recognize it as legitimate if your made up being performed many miracles, was killed and was resurrected - and hundreds of people saw this. When paul is writing in the bible, he cites these witnesses that saw this happen.
Elififa, Hundreds of people witnessed and attested to it.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
...Meaning it was not just something someone cooked up in their head.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. Given enough time and large number of illiterates, I bet I can replicate a similar story like the jesus one. lets not forget that it was also plagiarized from stories that came before it. I'm of course assuming that you consider it authentic by the shear number of people who agree with you. on a side note. I know you have doubts about your belief, and every time you start doubting you usually start praying for jesus to help you overcome them. next message>>
Elififa 1 year ago
@Elififa, There are no respectable historical communities which say that the statements about the pagan gods predating Jesus are true. There is just simply no evidence of those stories predating Jesus. This is not my quote, but the quotes of Historians who were interviewed in the documentaries Zeitgeist refuted. You can find them on Youtube. I suggest that if you watch them so you arent just following this false accusations blindly.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. Did you say "no evidence" for my claims? really! I'm pretty sure you are wrong because I suspect that what you call facts are biased opinions from Jesus loving people. I can also give you authentic none biased, evidence based sights that suggest the contrary. But I won't do that till you ask for them. so I'm waiting.
Elififa 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. How is this for a change; next time you start getting doubts, instead of suppressing them with prayer. How about you try to resolve those doubts head on. think about them, and try not to make up excuses for god (especially when you start thinking about suffering). I'm sure god can speak for himself using the bible. Oh yeah and another tip, look at the bible as a whole. Is it more peaceful than it is violent. Please do this and tell me of what you think. thanks
Elififa 1 year ago
I promise you i DO deal with doubts.Sometimes, i dont wish to turn to Jesus and pray. Sometimes i want to look to the world for healing, and try to find happiness in getting drunk with friends, or finding a girl to hook up with.I promise you the World offers nothing but pain and empty promises. You will find no true satisfaction. When you feel emptiness from the world, I urge you to look to Christ. He loves you so much and wishes for you to just look to Him. Do it, brother. I am praying for you
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. How can you be so self centered? Not everything is about you. Why should the world care about you. The emptiness is not the world, it's in you. The world is an interesting place, and the more you learn about it, the more interesting it gets. I don't need to delude my self with stories (which I know in the back of my head to be false) in order to live a happy fulfilling life. The world is only painful to those who expect something more from it.
Elififa 1 year ago
That is a common understanding of the bible in Todays times.People think that God is just so full of wrath. I Promise you that the Bible is not about this. God is a LOVING GOD! He Loves us SO much that he sent His own son whom He loved more than ANYTHING, to be tortured and killed by us, for our sake.Imagine that for a second.He Loves you so much.
The Old testament is all about Jesus, tho it is hidden. From Genesis to Malachi, all of the stories precursor Jesus Passion. Its about love not hate
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. I asked to you not to make excuses for Jesus, but you did just that. According to the bible; god is at most of the time an evil tyrant and of course at some times nice. now for a question, would you call someone who is at most times evil and sometimes good, a good person? Don't paraphrase for me a nice quote from the bible and tell me that god is good. what about all the other times he's bad.
Elififa 1 year ago
@TommyJ77 yeah, god loves everyone, specially kids. I know.
how many children have been molested by christian church employees?
look at satanism for example, they teach you NOT TO HURT CHILDREN.
moses told about how rapevictims should marry their rapist. he explained how to own and use a slave properly, he teached me to kill my wife if she has fun with someone else.
skaribou 1 year ago
@skaribou
Oh i think you may be confused about the Christian faith. See Christianity simply means "Follower of Christ."
Christ Loved Children, and would never hurt them. "Mark 9:42-If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea."
He also said That the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children.
Of course Christians are taught to "not hurt children" as you say.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
Saribou Continued from before, Christians also believe that Jesus will heal any wounds caused by any trauma like rape. He is the Heavenly physician.
Also, Christians believe slavery is wrong. And we also believe that killing is wrong. If your wife is unfaithful, you may divorce her but Jesus calls us to Forgive her and pray for her out of Love.
Recall Jesus with the Prostitute. Everyone in town wanted to stone her to death, Jesus stopped them saying, "He who is without sin cast the first stone
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77
thank god! i thought rape was something horrible, but if all wounds get healed, its not a big deal.
Thats why so fuckin many priests are rapist.
now, go ahead and tell every rapevictim to stfu and stop crying, jesus has saved them.
about mark 9:42 what about kids who dont believe in him?
skaribou 1 year ago
@skaribou
Im sorry, i wasn't clear apparently. Jesus wants only to Help victims. He was pained immensely by their suffering. So Jesus, and us Christians would never tell a victim to "stfu, Jesus saved you." But rather look to Jesus for healing and consolation. Jesus would also pass His love through us onto other souls.
As for the children, or anyone for that matter who does not believe in Him, Jesus loves them regardless. He also gives them the choice to Serve him in Heaven or to Choose Hell.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
jesus never healed someone.
How many rape victims got healed by jesus-followers?
and on the other hand, how many christians have raped?
skaribou 1 year ago
@skaribou
I am completely certain that countless victims of any sort of trauma have been emotionally healed by Jesus. I am also certain that countless victims of trauma have been loved by Christians and been consoled by the love of Christ flowing through them.
How many non-Christians have raped? I would assume that people who are not being taught to love thy neighbor, and people who have given their lives up to service of Christ all for the sake of love are much less likely to rape others IMO
TommyJ77 1 year ago
countless means like zero.
but if christianity can emotionally help, so do other religions. And i bet some are doing a way better job than christianity e.g. buddhism.
But in the end, religions wont help more than a handful of victims.
how many non christians have raped? Too fuckin many. But most of them are members of other religions (e.g. the krishna cult, which was only invented to raise money and rape children, like christianity)
how many atheist are rapist?
religion leads to rape.... :(
skaribou 1 year ago
@TommyJ77, what Hitler does is wrong because humans have realized over the course of time that in order to survive as a species, killing another human being without legitimate reasons is wrong. Even animals share this trait.
Elififa 1 year ago
Elififa, this is in response to your comment that said, "you are assuming that you can know that there is an absolute truth, stop being weired and accept the fact that you do not know."
Dont you see the hypocrisy in this argument? It may sound humble to say "No one can know if there is an absolute truth. Its anyones best guess." Dont you see that you are applying an absoute truth to that statement? You are saying, It is absolutely true that you can not know. Well how do you know that is true?
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. Oh come on man. Stop misquoting me. I never said "truth" go back and read my comment. I said "moral giver" but we all make mistakes.
Elififa 1 year ago
This is responding to your comment "Without your holy book, you and I are both in the same position."
Yes! Without a being who is higher that us humans, I have no better access to truth than you or hitler for that matter. I get my access to truth from God. Without God, you cannot say that you have better access to Truth than another human being. So you CANNOT say that hitler was evil and be absolutely sure about it. You can have that opinion, but you can not claim that as Truth.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@meaningfulscience1 As a non-theist I respect very much the reasoning on W. L. Craig. It is essential for a real scientist to constantly question things. What however is wrong of you is to connect these perfect scientific questions to your presumption of the existence of a god. I really would like to know how this works in your mind.
zevenkamp 1 year ago
@Elififa So are you arguing that we should all adheree to that morality that you follow, (the golden rule)? If so, why do you believe this to be true? And how can you say that this moral compass is any better than the moral compass of the next man? You do not know truth better than any MAN. That is why absolute moral truth can only come from a higher being. Without this higher being, Hitler's convictions are no better or worse than my own.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
@TommyJ77. I believe the golden rule is a good rule because it makes us do what we don't do at times. It allows us to see our selves in others. It allows us to do the greater good. If anyone can come up with a rule that allows us to treat each other better. I promise you that the golden rule in my opinion will fall to second place. I almost sounded religious, but don't confuse my secular rational opinion with something that is said in your holy book. I'll be happy to explain some more.
Elififa 1 year ago
Atheist have better morals than the very religious people. If God ask you, would you kill someone else? I would never kill anyone just because someone told me. I might kill someone if my life depends on it, but that's only self preservation.
One thing he used as an agrument was that you can't prove logic. And ofcourse you can't. It's like saying who invented the rules of the world? You can only prove how it works, not why it works. Or the other way arround, never both...
sawman85 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We all believe in laws for society to work, it's only logical and helps us understand. What the last guy says is a circular argument in it's self! So this guy is talking sh*t.
*Laws of any kind (relativity, physics ect.)
But the fact is besides this "genetic fallacy", Dawkins was saying - in context - that all faiths have the same evidence behind them, wherever you're brought up!
REdirectURL 2 years ago
Comment removed
REdirectURL 2 years ago
WLG - Hilarious as always
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
What's so funny?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
How ignore the philosophy of meaingful truth of Quine, Russell, Hume, Locke, Wittgenstein, Hempel, etc and cling to the philosophies of Charlatans.
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
The validity of science is right here and used by Mr Craig to miscredit it, in form of microphones and cameras and youtube.
The very same norms used to create the mapping of our evolution.
And they work as apposed to trusting in a, clearly manmade old book written by deluted people who didnt know any better.
Thank goodness for people like Dawkins.
If it was up to the religious nuts we would still be hacking meat with stonetools in a cave.
And dawkins wolud blow Craig away in a debate.
soskid 2 years ago
Watch my video, Real Science. Real Faith. to learn about who discovered electromagnetism (Faraday), the laws of electricity (Maxwell), the first computer (Pascal), etc. and what they thought about Atheism. Tell me what you think as a comment on that video.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
This video cleverly left out the part where Dawkins sums up everything he had just said with, "What if you're wrong?"
His argument in this case had absolutely nothing to do with saying religion is wrong because how it came about. He was simply pointing out that just as easily as he could be wrong about Christianity, she could be wrong about Vishnu... and Vishnu might not be too pleased either.
famguy231 2 years ago
Essentially, he just pointed out her fallacy in implying that one should believe in God because if they don't and are wrong, they may suffer.
famguy231 2 years ago
That is not a fallacy. That is perfectly reasonable. If the God of the Bible is indeed real, and you reject Him, then you will miss out on everything you were created to experience, true love, peace, joy, satisfaction. Now whether you think there is more evidence for Vishnu or Jesus Christ is a separate issue. But there is no fallacy in her argument.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
He explicitly states "why" she is a Christian, "because she has been brought up in a Christian culture." He says, if she had been brought up in India she would be Hindu, etc. This is what I am responding to with the Genetic Fallacy claim. And he is saying that this implies that it is baseless. He is explaining the religious belief away because of how he thinks it came about, what he thinks it is based upon. What is your religious faith? What do you base your faith on?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
@meaningfulscience1: No. You are wrong. I'm not going to debate about it, you are just wrong. That was not his argument here at all. The only reason he says everything he says here is to build up to making the retort "What if YOU'RE wrong?" to point out the stupidity in her question -- something your video completely leaves out. You are committing the fallacy here, and it's called a straw man. You can easily find the full response to this question in the related videos section.
famguy231 2 years ago
Oh yeah, way to go, disprove science and accept jesus as your god. I would like to send all ignorat christians to another planet just so they can apreciate how much are they gonna miss simple things that cant be proven like "Television" and "Mircrowaves" hey radiation is a lie! atoms are a lie! carbon based life is a lie! and pump action, leverage and other scientifical facts like gravity are all a lie! that scientifics can´t prove! the speed of light is a lie!.
efebo66 2 years ago
efebo66...
He wasn't saying that Science was a lie. he was saying that science/reality/etc (just like God) cannot be proven.
So if Dawkins says "we cant prove God.. so i wont believe it" then he should also admit "we cant prove Science, so i wont believe it."
The Christian is saying "Morals/Truth/Art IS REAL, and we CAN assume things unprovable.. just like God".
Dawkings is the one saying "X is a lie" (about God), DAWKIN'S logic can show Science as a lie.. so lets agree his logic is wrong.
SongofDeath007 2 years ago
Man, you need to calm down. Take a few deep breaths, maybe eat something, and then read what you've written. You are speaking nonsense here. Who gave us the basic laws of electricity and magnetism? J.C. Maxwell, a Bible-believing Christian who wrote hymns and was a deacon at a church he helped to build! See my video Real Science. Real Faith. for more examples of world-changing scientists who are men of faith.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
"you have to judge a religious truth claim according to the evidence"...What evidence pray tell?
sbooder 2 years ago
What the science denier is saying; in a nutshell, is an old trick. Science can not prove anything because; I think therefore I am, but you may not exist at all.
Good...then why the hell should we listen to him, because he dose not exist.
I also noticed you cut off Richard Dawkins short of his actual rebuttal, which was What if I am wrong? What if you are wrong
sbooder 2 years ago 2
I am not a science denier. See my video Real Science. Real Faith. for a ton of examples of scientists who make Dawkins look like a child that also believe in the God who made you. And I don't think you understand the argument I am making. Look up Genetic Fallacy in a dictionary and then comment again.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
What Dawkins is actually saying is "what if one of these religions (which the girl pressumably thought were false) was right".
The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with this.... why do you even bring it up?
Furthermore, the technology that you use to watch this video is proof of the assumptions used in science and math. Science proves it assumptions, constants and existence through rigorous testing and scrutiny; unlike Lane's twisted beliefs, this stuff isn't made up overnight.
jmui011 2 years ago 3
Dawkins was implying that the girl was only a Christian because she was raised that way. Therefore, her arguments will be invalid and unreliable. I was saying that the you have to judge a religious truth claim according to the evidence, not according to who said it or what their background is. That's what the genetic fallacy is all about. Look it up and watch the video again.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
My bad, but I've possibly created a miscommunication here.
I do know the genetic fallacy, but I am claiming that Dawkins has not produced this. He is merely commenting on the ignorance of the Girl's statement, as she girl is presumably an atheist regarding thousands of religions and Gods.
Unless of course she is claiming a deist god; the fallaciousness of the Christian God here, would not disprove God (i.e. the genetic fallacy)....
jmui011 2 years ago
.... (cont from last)
Anyhow, this is all conjecture and beside the point, as he was not trying to disprove God. He was only explaining why, for his final comments, he was going to presume that she is a Christian.
I am claiming that you've taken this way out of context. Dawkins is only saying, that if he should be considering the consequences of whether he is wrong, then why isn't she doing the same.
That is all.... nothing to do with whether God is real.
jmui011 2 years ago
@jmui011
Quoting you:
" Dawkins is only saying, that if he should be considering the consequences of whether he is wrong, then why isn't she doing the same. "
See, he didn't answer the question - he turned it back to her instead. But she isn't the one giving a speech and answering questions. And Dawkins doesn't know if perhaps she IS DOING the same.
Even if she isn't "considering the consequences"doesn't mean that Dawkins as well.. thats a cop out.
SongofDeath007 2 years ago
Do all questions merit a direct response? Is it possible to have a question asked, that doesn't deserve a response? I mean, we're not in elementary school anymore, there is such a thing as a stupid question.
What did she expect him to say? "What if I'm wrong? Well, that depends on what I"m wrong about. If I"m wrong about christianity then I will burn for an eternity of torture."
The question didn't deserve the type of response, that I think you feel it did.
Havenfall 2 years ago
No, not all questions merit a response, which Dawkins could have said, instead he attacked her intellect "if you were born X you would be different.." which implies that her belief is based on indoctrination, and not reasoning.
I didn't say it deserved a response, I was simply pointing out that his answer wasn't an answer.
SongofDeath007 2 years ago
Ok, I think I get it. You are saying he is obliqed to answer the question. Sounds reasonable.
jmui011 2 years ago
Jimu, exactly.
And it was also a legitimate question. In my line of work, if someone is building a computer to run an airplane - and they say it will work. I should be able to ask them "what if you are wrong". Its an important question for anyone making a claim.
Instead of saying:
"well then i guess i don't go to heaven" or something. He instead attacked her, assuming she was a Christian.
Maybe she was an atheist and wanted to know. But he avoided the question, and attacked the questioner.
SongofDeath007 2 years ago
I don't think that Dawkins was, in this particular piece, implying that her information was unreliable or invalid because she raised christian.
Her question was "What if you're wrong". Dawkins said "Anybody could all be wrong".
His point is there are hundreds of religions we could be wrong about, should we worry about them all?
Not that your 'rebuttal' was incorrect or wrong in any way, just that I think you completely and utterly misunderstood what was being said.
Havenfall 2 years ago
@havenfall
If Dawkins admits that "anybody could be wrong". He is admiting that he could be wrong.
Her questions wasn't: "could you be wrong".
Her question was:
"what if you ARE wrong".
Dawkins avoided the question by pointing fingers at everyone else and saying "its not just me". Thus the argument has no value, it doesn't help Christians or atheists - so he shouldn't bring it up.
SongofDeath007 2 years ago
He was pointing out that the question itself is useless. Yes, Dawkins could be wrong about christianity, he could be wrong about Islam, he could be wrong about Buddhism, he could be wrong about the celestial teapot.
We could all be wrong about thousands of religious beliefs, so why on Earth would someone ask him "What if you're wrong"?
The question is useless.
Havenfall 2 years ago
this is an interesting and fruitful discussion you have had. thanks a lot. please watch my other videos, real science real faith, and science is not atheism.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Exactly. If we want to grow as a species, it's time to stop believing in the supernatural and start using all of that free time to encourage personal and societal growth.
shaun365 2 years ago
Why grow as a species? Why use our free time for personal and societal growth? Atheism cannot serve as a foundation for your moral claims. "Without God all things are permissible."
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that without God, we would have no morals? If so, how completely ignorant. If you really wanted to live by the morals in the bible, you should be out stoning homosexuals, misbehaving teenagers, women that aren't virgins until marriage, any (all) men that masturbate. Idiocy. Have you even READ the bible?
shaun365 2 years ago
that says much about your personality.
So, you would go around raping women if you didnt have to fear the punishment of some allmighty creature...
laughable.
skaribou 2 years ago
What I am saying is that you, as an Atheist, cannot say that raping women is truly and absolutely evil. You can only say that you feel very strong distaste for it. You have no absolute standard to base your morality upon. I believe that God made man in His own image, and that includes our inborn sense of wrong and right. What do you think of that?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
@meaningfulscience1 sure I can. The only thing i cant say is, that you would get punished by someone way bigger than you for all eternity.
Our "inborn sense of wrong and right" goes with our intelligence. You are able to imagine yourself as someone else, and therefor can think about the impact your actions may have to someone else, which leads to "do i want that to happen to me"
skaribou 2 years ago
furthermore our society grew big and needed rules of behaviour. (like every society, even animalgroups, need or just have them).
Thats were laws come in handy. They are thought out pretty well to ensure everyone respect oneanother and no one needs to get harm, while everyone still can say what they want and be free. If not, they get resocialised, means teached in behaviour.
too bad laws are broken so often.
other question, if we are in gods image, why are we still doing bad things?
skaribou 2 years ago
We are still doing bad things because we are in rebellion against being in God's own image. We want to make God in our own image. We want to worship ourselves and decide what we think is best for ourselves, rather than worship and serve Him and allow Him to decide what is best for us. How about you? Can you relate to this at all?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Rape is evil because our evolved moral code tells us so. Thats's it man.
I wonder where you find your moral code in the holy texts?
Loth who slept with his own daughters and offered them out for gangrape perhaps?
On behalf of the evolved human race, I have to say that I find your godbased morality offensive.
soskid 2 years ago
According to your atheism, why is it wrong to rape and impregnate a beautiful, healthy, young woman if you have good reason to believe that you won't be caught or punished? This is the situation for most rapes in the world. Men doing it because they know they can get away with it. It seems that would spread your Atheistic genes around and help them to survive more than avoiding the opportunity because it feels wrong.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
I live in the most atheistic country in the world. We also hold the worldrecord in not waging war against our neighbours.
US is concidered the most religiouis westen country. How many wars have you fought in for the last 200 years?
soskid 2 years ago 16
First, an atheist can do what is right, but he will not have a solid foundation for doing it. A Christian has a solid foundation for his morality, even if he doesn't always live by it. Second, war is not always evil. Defending the defenseless when they are being attacked is a good and righteous thing. I am not saying that every war the U.S. has fought in has been a just war. And staying out of every war is not always a good thing. At times it can mean cowardice or inconsideration.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
@soskid Well actually, according to statistics, that's not actually true.
TheHumpadump 10 months ago
@TheHumpadump What is not true?
soskid 10 months ago
@soskid
Can you really point to that of being the cause? There is not a causal link between waging war and religion in this scenario.. there are MANY other causes for wars. It might though apply as a contributor of wars, I can definitely agree with that.. Something like the Palestinian-Israel conflict can apply directly as a major contributor of the war, fueling the fire with disagreement between the two nations, though this alone did not justify for the war.
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
@fearfulmatrix I agree, many other reasons for waging war than religion. But all too often religion are used to mandate atrocities. Indeed the christians favourite "atheist" warmonger, Hitler was a believing catholic and according to his book "mein kampf" was on a mission from god. Killing the christ-killers.
I'm not saying we would'nt have any wars without religion, but some could have been avoided.
Normal sane people will do the most wicked evil things if they believe god's in their corner.
soskid 7 months ago
@soskid
God does not justify murder. People that claim god justify murder. That's something that is very clear on all religious accounts... Not even Nietzsche, the creator of Hitler's philosophy mandate for the killing of Jews. It was the psychopathic ideological nonsense that Hitler spouted about. Just because people use it for the wrongdoing of elites and interest groups does not make it an all-evil cause.
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
@fearfulmatrix God has no problem with murder.
Exodus 21:7, 35:2
Leviticus 1:9, 11:7-8, 11:10, 18:22, 19:19, 19:27, 20:14, 21:20, 24:10-16, 24:44
Deutronomy 21:18-21
The bible is not an all-evil cause but there are a lot of stupid evil text in it, as well as good.
It is not being misused by evil people.
Good people will do evil things and find mandate for it in the texts
soskid 7 months ago
@soskid
I cannot disagree with that. This is one of the things that I despise about religion. Despite that, the only reason that the bible contains those IS because it was manipulated by men. The church would be the first one's to admit that, otherwise most would just dissent due to their own contradictions. Many interpretations arise as well, due to translations and points of view. But this should never be dismissed by any church relying on the bible.
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
@fearfulmatrix Certainly the bible has been manipulated with to a degree where we can't possibly know what's true
Fundamentalist christians take everything litterally and I believe we can agree that those people are crazy and dangerous
The more modern sensible christian use their innate morals to decide parts of the bible to believe in as god word
Then why not use the innate to begin with and jump over the mumbo jumbo?
I think even god would like that. should he exist against all reasonable odds
soskid 7 months ago
@soskid
Yes, you are talking about secular humanist morality. How do we obtain it. We learn it from our mothers and fathers, we learn it from our mentors and heroes. Where did they get it from? It is more likely that they obtained it out of a God's mouth. So clearly the link between "God" and morality cannot be dismissed. I have doubts about God, but I do not question very much the moral teachings of the church. You think of the ills, but you also have to recognize the good about religion.
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
@fearfulmatrix Sure, there's god and bad in the bible I agree. But that's just a very strong indication that gods do not exist.
Using our innate modern morals and ethics both you and I would need no more than 5 minutes to rewrite and greatly improve the ten commendments. Surely an all powerfull, all knowing deity would have done a better job than that.
The bible is exactly as filled with, good , bad, contradictions and fallacies as one would expect if it had been written by an evolved mammal.
soskid 7 months ago
@soskid
Let me be clear..
Not even the wisest men on earth had their morals straight and set. Socrates, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and many other philosophers all struggled with it in their lives till the very end. So to say that we would have it figured out is an outright absurdity. Most would agree that Yes, the Ten commandments don't suffice, but in all cases the church establishes a sense of need for good and love, which is what the atheist movements lack. A system of morals is necessary.
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
@fearfulmatrix I'm not going to defend calims I did'nt make.
Never said that modern morals are straight and set. They have evolved along with humans and will hopefully continue to do so. It is the religious beliefs that are frozen in time,
The ten commandments is not just unsufficial.
God saw fit to use 4 of 10 to talk about himself, not leaving room for other matters.
Only a selfcentered egomaniac would do that, not an all powerfull all knowing deity.
Obviously they were made by man not god.
soskid 7 months ago
@soskid
"If books were judged by the bad uses man can put them to, what book has been more misused than the Bible?" - Maritain
fearfulmatrix 7 months ago
@fearfulmatrix The bible is not being misused by the fanatics. Read and you.ll see that they actually are the more precise followers of the BS that's in it. Modern christians have to ignore half of what's in the old testamente, not to break the law on a daily basis.
Juacques Maritain was a catholic Thomist nutcase.
soskid 7 months ago
@soskid
In turn, I must ask one question about your criticism.. Are you more against religion? or rather are you against the acceptance of a transcendental world, or spiritualism (as people call it now)?
fearfulmatrix 6 months ago
@fearfulmatrix I consider myself a spiritual person, indeed I have had some personal indications that there might be an afterlife. But thats my personal belief without and I have zero evidence for it so I keep it to my self.
If religious people could do the same we wouldnt have a problem, but they cant. Their holy books commands them to Prostaletize. Open a tv or historybook to see what misery that has caused all over the world.
Im not against religion, I absolutely despise it as the evil it is.
soskid 6 months ago
that is bullshit. Humans have a mind to know what is wrong and what is right. With god or not.
roggy12345 2 years ago
I agree with you when you say all humans know what is right and wrong. I disagree with you when you say we don't need God as a standard for good and evil. You are virtually alone on that one, man. What do you base your claim on? Why do you believe that?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Does one need religion to serve as a foundation for moral claims? Can not experience, compassion, and reason provide this?
Havenfall 2 years ago
Like Dostoevski famously said, "Without God all things are permissible." Experience and reason are morally neutral, so they aren't going to be a source. Compassion can be an appropriate moral response, but not always. Basically, there are these passions and feelings that we all experience and that need to be played like piano keys at the appropriate times. The keys don't tell you which to play and when. You need something outside the keys, sheet music. This is what God's Law is.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
christians are the last ones to claim moral standarts for themselves. the bible is full of blood. The god of the bible is a blood thirsty sick nazi.
(he doesnt like other believes, gays, ill people, peoplem with deformed genitals and so on. just like hitler!)
good moral standarts came by people who didnt took the bible seriously.
its not a god, its not a bible, its not a religion, its the human mind which is seeking peace.
skaribou 2 years ago
Are you an atheist? If so, what standard do you use to call the God of the Bible evil? What do you base your "good moral standards" on? You say the human mind, but what does that mean? Humans think and justify all kinds of horrible things with the same mind they use to love. What is the standard that tells you which thoughts to strengthen and obey vs which to snuff out and ignore? I recommend reading Romans chapter 2 (it's a passage from the Bible.)
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
easy questions, cmon.
1. not your business.
2. according to his punishments in the bible, he is a massmurder.
3. treat others like you want to be treated. e-z.
4. the human mind is you conscious, like the OS programmed in your brain. (the thing which makes it possible for you to read books)
5. we are still some kind of animals. Of course there is a competition in survival which lead to people being selfish.
i recomment you to stop ignoring the bible parts of gods hatred against minoritys.
skaribou 2 years ago
I recommend you try to UNDERSTAND the Bible too see how much God truly LOVES his children.
Yes, He Loves You. This Love is stronger than your indifference or resentment towards Him.
TommyJ77 1 year ago
No worse blind than the one who doesn't want to see.
Even if science is sometimes wrong, it's our most reliable source of knowledge.
If just these people would see what a logic, simple and beautiful universe science presents us, they wouldn't need to believe in a god.
Religion did had a purpose and has already accomplished it. We have science now. We don't need to be told that god is mad when it doesn't rain in our crops.
It's time to move on.
20cigarrosconfiltro 2 years ago 2
Do you use science to learn mathematical truths? Logic? Ethics? No. Science is not all-powerful. It's only one tool in the toolbox for learning about who we are and what we're doing here. See my video, "Science Is Not Atheism."
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
This is just too stupid.
Science can't be scientifically proven, therefor the bible is true.
The techhique making it possible to see this vid on a computer is more proof than proof enough that science work just fine.
Nothing even remotely like that in favour of religion.
So if science conclude that religion is probably BS, I for one will go with that.
But of course god cant be disproven.
Nor can capricorns or the sasquatch.
Highly improbable though.
Thats what Dawkins says.
soskid 2 years ago
The video is actually demonstrating that science is based on faith. Faith in our senses as well as our minds to know reality.
If you want to know the love of God, you have to trust God with the same amount of faith as you do your senses.
Non-Christians only know feelings which are wishy washy; however, Christians know and understand love due to faith.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
so if we find a way to make crops grow much better using chemicals. do we have faith in it? we can observe the crops growing better then the crops without it.
about the faith in senses thing, if someone was to all of a sudden blink into existence he probably wouldnt trust his senses much. after a while using observations he would trust his senses because they are consistent and can make predictions.
uberownagemonkey 2 years ago
You come home to your house and find lorry tracks in the lawn, the front door broken open and all your furniture gone.
Based on this evidence I would say that you've had burglers in your house.
Do you really mean to call that a faithbased assumtion?
Scientific assumtions is always based on mounts of evidence, not faith.
Religious faith never is, cause there is'nt any. Thus the word faith.
soskid 2 years ago
You bypassed the question. Our minds and our senses are believed by faith. We know physical reality on the basis of faith. it is the same faith by which a person know the love of God.
Atheism and every other worldview is based on faith.
Atheism by faith believes that matter is greater than mind.
Christianity teaches that mind is greater than matter.
These are faith assumptions...
zdennyfamily 2 years ago