4:21 Watch Dawkins as Bishop begins to open her idiotic trap. It's as though he cracks his neck in anticipation of the size of the arsehole he's about to tear for her.
Wow. This was an eye opener. I always viewed Australia as taking a standpoint toward religion that was more like Britain's as opposed to the US's. In other words, there seems to be a LOT of blind faith flying around that panel and not enough logic and common sense (not to mention some deceitful debating tactics by that dickhead on the left). Is this panel a representative selection of Australians' religious beliefs? Or is the general public less stridently religious than these nutcases?
I like how when Richard points out the absurdities in religion, the panel says he is being disrespectful. Then he gets attacked by 3 people who sit around and complain about the fact that they hope there is more than this life. That's selfish and disrespectful to LIFE.
Hate that Dawkin's got cut off when he was about to flip it at the accusation that he changed his words. I smell someone being subjectively tarnished by their own doctrine and having a weak stab at Dawkins.
And even if he did ridicule it, why wouldn't he? He know's better than most people, who have ever lived, that religious doctrine is a joke.
And I thought political and religious figures in America were pathetic. It's like they are just playing at being serious on the panel. Did one of them give a straight answer? Poor Dawkins, he sacrifices so much for us.
Dawking proves yet again the fact that a great deal of adult peoples rational reasoning is not far beyond that of a child. The hilarious (or rather sad part) is that Dawking is then ask to still treat them as the emotional immature children they are in order to protect their feelings. *sigh* The reason any religion can continue with spread beliefs in stone age beliefs system is just because we grants religious beliefs to bloody much respect...
This is know as playing the "card of the offended"...
I wonder if Bishop also respect any peoples view then, like the view that the earth is flat? Or is she talking a stance about a relative respect? If so, why is her measurement of what and what not should be respected more correct or proper than Dawkins?
What about instead saying: " People should not be offended so easily" ??
" Why not?" at 4:10 is a perfectly justified question from Dawkins because we want an assurance that religious people wont change their "absolute" moral standard depending on how the winds blow for the day but dependent on sound rational reasoning.
Any moral cherry picking religious person that can not address the question "why not?" has not a clear system of believes he can base and justify his morality on and hence is a person which moral values cannot be trusted.
@RustlessPotato pointing out what exactly is in the bible is disrespectful to religious people because your showing them how insane they are and they don't like that and why would they
People insecure in their beliefs system does sometimes feel (or in some cases often feel) offended by critical arguments about their beliefs. If you on the other hand are secure in your belief system you may disagree or even dislike the critics towards it but you will not fell offended - because why would you need to?
The religious people think he's being intolerant because they're embarrassed that he's so blatantly right and they've been cornered with nothing intelligent to say on the matter so they get defensive and call him arrogant and strident. We're so lucky we live in a society where Dawkin can talk like this. If this had been a few thousand years ago Tony Burke would have called Dawkin a blasphemer and he'd be sent to the gallows. Who knows how many have died in the name of truth.
@endxofxeternity Exactly, religious nuts have killed countless people for there nonreligious thoughts for centuries. Now its time believers shut up and let atheists speak about the truth. I for one couldn't care less if they think we are being disrespectful. We've had 2000 years of there bull', enough is enough
Im an atheist but i would not mind having an afterlife. Living for ever could be quite interesting. As long as i can end it whenever i want by jumping in a star.
ps: I would not mind being a D&D Wizard or a comic book superhero either.
Separating the facts from fantasy is what makes us atheists.
The problem with speaking about "intolerance" when it comes to religious beliefs versus science is that the standard is twofold for religion in comparison to any other aspect of human study. Science bows to evidence. Religion trudges on despite of evidence. If someone makes wild claims under the umbrella of religion, the taboo is that it is intolerant to question those claims. Dawkins is merely advocating that religion be subject to the same critical analysis as every other aspect of our lives.
I have watched many many many debates like this on You Tube and other forums. Never has any religious apologist made any claim or argument that has defeated the athiest viewpoint, never. It just doesn't (can't?) happen. This series of clips shows how the religious can only speak from a perspective of ignorance and gullibility.
He should be disrespecting it since it's the polar opposite of logic. "I'm responsible for creating bad people, so I better let them kill me...but not really."
Dawkins summarized the events of the New Testament coldly and without the emotional "umph" that Christians usually give it. Because it is rarely heard in that context, it is easy to hear it as though it is being ridiculed. If it sounds that way its because IT IS ridiculous to think an omnipotent God had to suffer for any reason in order to accomplish a goal, let alone one that revolved around saving Christians from Hell.
Sorry Biship. I am not going to respect the views of a homophobic or a racist. Respect is earned. Not taken. What I won't do, however, is descend into a madman yelling profanities and throwing my faeces because I disagree.
Good on you Mr. Burke, unlike other Christians in the panel who sat on the fence, you gave it to Dawkins for being disrespectful. Dawkins is arrogant and intolerant, and there is something really sad about someone who makes it their life mission to spread hate. A man who gives his life for not one of his friends, but ALL of his friends, isn't that the ultimate sacrifice and proof of his love? The trouble is Mr.Dawkins, what would you know about sacrifice? You love yourself too much
@MsTxibi Not true. It's just that Dawkins has been debating in US lately and in there arrogance and agressiveness are only ways to accommodate into TV-debates. Hopefully he will recover.
God i love Dawkins takes my words right out of my mouth=)
''God'' :P
As Dawkins said with god putting him self on earth and u know sacrifice him self what kind of sacrifice is that he knows he will go to heaven again and rule the world.
And i think god can make him self feel no pain (while being tortured) xD
the post-1917 regimes in Russia went after the Church simply because they saw religious organizations as nothing else but " the organs of bourgeois reaction" which in Russia was in fact true to a large extend. It was not that hey I'm an atheist therefore I will kill priests but hey I hate the bourgeoisie therefore I will kill everyone who supports them. That's certainly not the "logic" of religious extremists. Rather "I will burn you alive because you don't follow my religion, period".
lets see how julia bishop actually adds to the agrument that professor dawkins was making. she states that the bible is a text 2000 years old so we dont believe in putting gay people to death anymore. I'm sorry but if the bible is the word of a perfect god then shouldnt those words in it be perfect? i mean if you call yourself a christian you have to believe that killing gay people is ok. and none of them do. so how can they use the bible as reference? they cant!!!! bloody idiots. grow up
WTF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE EXCEPT RICHARD CAN GO GET FUCKED. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE RESPECT THAT RELIGION DEMANDS WITH NO LOGICAL REASONS FOR DEMANDING IT. BOURKE, YOU CAN SHOVE THAT RESPECT UP YOUR ASS. RICHARD WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND YOU KNOW IT. AND IT IS RIDICULOUS, LETS FACE IT FUCKING HELL! GROW UP PEOPLE PLEASE!
Ugh, why on earth didn't Dawkins flat out tell them that there *doesn't* need to be a respect for ridiculous, unfounded beliefs? The woman on the far right and the man on the far left both took up the flag of "we need to respect each others' beliefs" and Dawkins completely let that issue go by not saying that no, we don't need to respect all beliefs equally and some beliefs, like religious ones, deserve our scorn and contempt. I'm not a fan of the backpedaling he seemed to be doing instead
I like Dawkins, but him saying "What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that" was sort of a very personal-opinion sort of thing that everyone else sort of leeched onto as a means of maneuvering around the actual substance behind this religion/science debate.
'tis a shame. Would have liked to see people squirm a little bit more under this sort of questioning.
I find that whenever you give voice to how unconvincing you find theistic claims, they throw a label of "disrespectful" at you. While they do not realize what they are saying, unraveling it you realize that any dissenting opinion on values voiced in opposition to theirs is considered "disrespect". It is a loaded phrase.
"Showing respect to all people's beliefs" is the motto of those promoting middle ground fallacies and those who wish to avoid confrontation. It flips dissent into antagonism.
As an atheist, I don't just like Dawkins because he is a popular atheist. I like him because he is real and doesn't seem to take this life so seriously when he discusses it, unlike these Christians who need to be offended by hearing their own doctrine because it clashes with societies interests. Don't get me wrong, he can speak seriously; but he is often more laid back because he seems to know something the religious do not.
I can't help but get the feeling that Richard didn't explain the silliness of the religious beliefs enough. It's not so much that god sacrificed himself, but rather that god sacrificed himself to himself to fulfill a law that he wrote himself. Could god not have said "Ok, everyone is forgiven if they're sorry" ? If not, then he's not all powerful, if so then he's an idiot.
@Kruglord or he could have just gotten it right from the beginning. Or after Adam and Eve, or after the flood and so on. How many times has good old god hit the reset button? And that's not counting the five or six times that far better educated people than me believe the Earth was hit by an asteroid, iced over, or super volcanoes nearly cleansed all life off of the face of the planet. But those things happened more than six to ten-thousand years ago so maybe they don't count as having happened.
What's more, god, all powerful immortal, briefly becomes human, spends a few unpleasant hours (out of his eternity) pegged to a stick, lays on a slab of stone for a few days, then goes home. That's not a sacrifice, that's a temporary inconvenience.
If someone offered to kill himself slowly and painfully, stating "I'm doing this for you," I wouldn't call it admirable, I'd be horrified, screaming at him to stop! Those who seek solace in that, if you don't mind me saying, it's sadism. In the purest definition of the word, it is taking pleasure in the pain of another.
Jebus, poor Dawkins. He's being lectured as though he is three (being nice to other three year olds). He has to get tired of always been up next to religious apologists and religious nuts.
Rcihard Dawkings alone outweighed the rest of the panel. They didn't have anything to say but crap, and tiptoeing around the beliefs not to say something too stupid.
Dawkins raised the point in another video that religion is the only topic where whenever you just asking an unpleasent question its offensive. It is harsh and disrespectful to faith just to ask or to argument. And i took this as normal. Not anymore.
How can the question "What kind of a depraved notion is that?" be disrespectful? He thinks that the notion is depraved. He does not think that the people in this panel is depraved.
I just can't stand the religious arrogance, which says that "criticizing a person's religion, is the same as criticizing the person, as a person".
They automaticly place themselves in a position where their views on the universe can't be criticized. That's really arrogant to me!
@Kornsirkler But the lady and the guy accused Dawkins of being disrespectful towards other people's views and religious beliefs, which I think was a fair assessment.
No he wasn't ridiculing the people themselves but that's not the point. Calling a belief "horrible" and "depraved" can be justifiably labeled as disrespectful.
@Tride So, if I call your political views "depraved", am I disrespectful? Why does religion get away with "you must respect it, otherwise you don't deserve real argument!" Im so sick and tired of that!
@Kornsirkler Yes, "depraved" is a pretty insulting word to pin on someone else's opinions. I think there is such a thing as disagreeing without disrespecting. Poor word choice can make a simple disagreement sound like an attack.
@Tride No it's not insulting as long as the word doesn't describe the person. To call an OPINION without evidence depraved is not something to whine about, and a belief is JUST that! An OPINION without evidence.
@Kornsirkler If I called your opinion "stupid" you would get mad. But if I politely explained why I disagreed with your opinion without throwing around derogatory words then you would be more receptive.
By the same token, Dawkins could have communicated his feelings without resorting to words like "depraved," but he chose to go the more abrasive route.
People take it personally when you insult their opinions, beliefs, and tastes because those things are a part of who you are as a person.
@Tride I would be equally mad if you politely said that you disagree without explaining why.. That's the reason to be offended by a person who criticize your meaning or view/belief. If you call my nose or face depraved and explain why, then I can fully understand that a person still feel offended. But to call a view/belief depraved and then explain why is not something to be personally offended by!
@Kornsirkler My point is that, in the context of a disagreement, there are certain words that tend to trigger negative reactions. I suspect that even if I did call your opinions stupid or depraved and then went on to elaborate why I think that way, you would still get mad.
If you really don't get mad about things like that, then great. I wish more people were like you. But most people are not like that, and it's not unusual for people to get offended by the specific WORDS or TONE you use.
Dawkins did "disrespect" their beliefs when he said "What kind of a depraved notion is that?" I've had friends tell me I remind them of Richard Dawkins, so you can presume what my views/opinions are. I've also seen this video before and I was on his side the first time. I caught what the panel was referring to this time around though.
Joseph Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, he did the things he did were because of his own personal views, wants and needs. He burnt down churches not because he thought god was bs but because they were a threat to his power.
You shouldn't be in the tyrant business if you don't realize that, the very first thing you do, once you reach the throne, is to eliminate the competition to that throne. Whatever that competition should be. A political party or religious cult.
How to do it? You can do it like Hitler did. Having them ( the church) on his side. Or, do like Stalin did. Using their very own methods. Proclaiming himself a god! Untouchable, megalomaniacal god. The only one god e' basta!
This issue of "respecting other people's beliefs." Simply put, I respect someone's right to believe what they want; but why should I respect the belief itself, when it is based on irrationality?
Do Christians think Jews and Muslims are going to Heaven? "No." Why not? "Because those other religions don't acknowledge Christ as God."
If that's what Christians believe, then that shows their disrespect for the beliefs of Muslims and Jews. (They just don't like to say it on the air.)
People have NOT committed atrocities in the name of atheism - they did it in the name of totalitarianism, imperialism communism, etc.. Atheism is a facet of some totalitarian modes of government, but it was not the cause of their atrocities.
You shouldn't be in the tyrant business if you don't realize that, the very first thing you do, once you reach the throne, is to eliminate the competition to that throne. Whatever that competition should be. A political party or religious cult.
How to do it? You can do it like Hitler did. Having them ( the church) on his side. Or, do like Stalin did. Using their very own methods. Proclaiming himself a god! Untouchable, megalomaniacal god. The only one there is !
It's quite funny, this is the exact same way and Scientologist or a Mormon reacts when someone cites there own religion to them. If you don't like it, then perhaps you should just leave?
No, they were offended at Dawkins mocking the idea of the atonement ("couldn't God think of a better way than torturing himself?" etc), not at the doctrine itself. Dawkins started back-peddling so fast that his chair would rolled backwards into the wall if it had wheels.
The question still stand though... "Couldn't God-" (In all his wisdom & power) "think of a better way than torturing himself?" - I personally don't feel that this is an offensive question. It's a very accute question from a genuinley curious mind. Haven't you ever wondered this yourself? Even when I was a christian I would ponder on this and pray for an answer. They were just playing the "I'm offended" card to deflect. Made them look really weak & pathetic.
I'm usually not game when it comes to throwing around the word "idiot" but in this case they are most certainly deserving. "You're going to hell - but please don't insult me by questioning my god" and this is acceptable to them. They were being insulting to the intelligence of all those who listened to them and their drivel. I don't care how you christians verbally defend yourselves, just don't use the pitty party card, those burnt in the name of Christ weren't given such luxuries.
@newloser um r u agreeing with me? or oh yes u r sweetas i thought u were having a go with me, funny u added on my 1 lil, yeah ay no1 really knows ay what ever is what so yeah i DON'T KNOW IF HE EXISTS WHO CREATED WHAT ETC.. that sounds normal to me not MY GOD THIS (as tho u know for certain)
The thing that i find so amusing (is amusing the right word? Strange at least) is that despite it seeming like Dawkins is alone up there EVERY TIME he makes a point against religion the audience applauds him so much longer and louder than they do the other panelists.
@jib1000 Thats because most of the audience agrees with Dawkins. Only a very brave politician would say they are atheist, a politician that will openly criticise religion is even more rare.
Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, openly declared her atheism before getting put into power by the electorate against a Christian opponent, and despite her party being unpopular.
@tubester4567 Well Julia is an atheist. Although her approval ratings a crap due to her being a crap PM, I doubt its got anything to do with her religion. In Australia, I don't really think a politician needs to be religious to be succesful.
@tubester4567 I agree with dawkins, but the clapping really got on my nerves. They agree quite vocally with anything the even resembled supporting atheism.
Dawkins simply states the doctrine of the new testament. It is matter of fact. Somehow that is showing disrespect? It is disrespect because those who hold those views are embarrassed by it when confronted. Therefore they feel they are being disrespected for being put on the spot.
If someone comes to me and says "I think the earth is flat, the moon landing was a lie, and CIA aliens killed JFK", no one would hold it against me if I laughed in his face. If someone comes up and says, "I think the universe was created by my invisible friend for the sole purpose of housing the human race," and I laugh in his face, I get called disrespectful. Double standards suck.
Mr. Richard Dawkins, the lab scientist of Oxford is arguably the most conceited character among all evolutionists. Frivolously barbed and proud of it; a petty although quaint, aggressive anti-God freak; a venomous, religion scoffer; Christian-phobic, prejudiced and narcissistic being, a theological and philosophical ignoramus, a megalomaniac orator, a temperamental and malevolent prima-donna.
I'm shocked that these people are members of the Australian parliament. Not only are their debating skills are non existent, but their beliefs are ridiculous. It's almost as though they'd never thought about questioning them until now. Unbelievable!
Its honestly becoming a joke. "Respect and tolerance for religion?", well if they stopped trying to pushing their beliefs into schools, non-believers, and most importantly on their own children, no-one would give a damn what you believe in. This panel is a joke - obviously outmatched in terms of logic, reason and ability to argue. Their mindset: "No let's not debate what Dawkins says, instead lets argue about how he says it." It doesn't surprise me Dawkins doesn't do these type of debates often.
He was asked to listen to his own words as well, and I like to imagine I saw a flicker of doubt in Dawkins' eyes. "Did I say it differently?" I replayed it a few times, and no, Professor Dawkins, at no point did your tone, inflection, or even your facial expression change to suggest you were attacking or ridiculing.
The only thing that changed was the attitude, and reception of your religious (religious moderate) listeners. What a brilliant example of how religion is defended. Without trying.
"Christ loved me, and died for me" - that's pretty much the whole thing, he sacrificed himself for the good of humanity. I don't understand Richard's point about that being strange and crazy to believe in.
Because God, supposedly the most intelligent being in existence, couldn't come up with anything better than a primitive execution of either himself or his son to satisfy the sins of humanity (which he himself is keeping tally of up in heaven)
I don't understand what ISN'T crazy and strange about that.
@Hughdapu That was painful to watch. It's like an intelligent sober man trying to explain common sense to aussies. Australian politicians are completely fucked in the head, and about 15million other aussies. Dawkins is a champ for even been seen with these retards...
@Hughdapu ..actually, i think the only ones that were retarded (amongst the panel) were Julie and Tony. They showed their colors well and how easily defensive and close-minded about the subjects they were. I thought Jackie was very open-minded and, even though she has her own faith she was willing to think and discuss maturely and logically (and her kindness helps her acceptance as well). Also, even though Steven did not really get to say much, each of his responses were logical as well.
@Hughdapu ...did i say steven? i meant patrick, the psychiatrist lol. When it comes to steven, i kinda agree with a previous comment (he's a coward) in another part, but i think he's being a lot more mature because he's not instead an aggressive religious person that obtrudes on others' views.
@Hughdapu I wouldn't call them retarded, most of them are very intelligent, they simply have different beliefs, also the people in governement are restricted in revealing their beliefs because they want votes.
Its incredible how when people of faith are confronted with the proof that their belief is ridiculous play the offense card, its really amazing why they don't give an answer, especially when they can shut Richard up simply by giving a reason why it is good for an innocent person to be tortured and punished by death for a crime that others committed. If its disrespectful to say that that is ridiculous than i have no interest in being respectful.
If god came to earth as a mortal , as jesus , so he could be tortured and crucified , to atone for our sins. Who was he appealing to? Himself? If he was paying for our sins , who was he paying? Seems like the type of logic that an omniscient being would see right through. If he did it as an example , then couldn't he have found a less dramatic and yet more effective way to teach the lesson? Maybe it is me , perhaps I expect to much from an omniscient being.
4:21 Watch Dawkins as Bishop begins to open her idiotic trap. It's as though he cracks his neck in anticipation of the size of the arsehole he's about to tear for her.
ImJustOldMate 1 week ago
Wow. This was an eye opener. I always viewed Australia as taking a standpoint toward religion that was more like Britain's as opposed to the US's. In other words, there seems to be a LOT of blind faith flying around that panel and not enough logic and common sense (not to mention some deceitful debating tactics by that dickhead on the left). Is this panel a representative selection of Australians' religious beliefs? Or is the general public less stridently religious than these nutcases?
pazzmodium 1 month ago 2
I am so ashamed at these Aussies. Respect has to be earned. These monkeys don't deserve any.
elmohead 1 month ago
richard is trying so hard to try not to facepalm.
Richardemize 1 month ago
Steve:" look, umm..."
thumbs up?
jwliang09 2 months ago
I like how when Richard points out the absurdities in religion, the panel says he is being disrespectful. Then he gets attacked by 3 people who sit around and complain about the fact that they hope there is more than this life. That's selfish and disrespectful to LIFE.
blakefandadot92 3 months ago 3
Why is this video so quiet?
rarmst2 3 months ago
Richard, you the man!
spottycardigan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Christ is Lord. Amen!
SoldierOfChrist110 4 months ago
Hate that Dawkin's got cut off when he was about to flip it at the accusation that he changed his words. I smell someone being subjectively tarnished by their own doctrine and having a weak stab at Dawkins.
And even if he did ridicule it, why wouldn't he? He know's better than most people, who have ever lived, that religious doctrine is a joke.
Zupecki27 4 months ago 3
Dawkins' face at 4:50. he's like "ugggghhhhhhh" lol
PhantomLord 4 months ago
B'awww, Dawkins didn't r-r-r-r-respect wu?
How unfortunate.
kissmygrittsyall 5 months ago 2
"I'm certainly not fearful of gays."
Off to a great start Steve.
kissmygrittsyall 5 months ago 2
And I thought political and religious figures in America were pathetic. It's like they are just playing at being serious on the panel. Did one of them give a straight answer? Poor Dawkins, he sacrifices so much for us.
NoNeedForGod 5 months ago 2
It turn out that the only person deserving of RESPECT in that panel is Mr. Dawkins,in my book, the rest do not qualified for it.
fidenful 5 months ago 2
Dawking proves yet again the fact that a great deal of adult peoples rational reasoning is not far beyond that of a child. The hilarious (or rather sad part) is that Dawking is then ask to still treat them as the emotional immature children they are in order to protect their feelings. *sigh* The reason any religion can continue with spread beliefs in stone age beliefs system is just because we grants religious beliefs to bloody much respect...
jomen112 5 months ago
"People should respect other peoples view"
This is know as playing the "card of the offended"...
I wonder if Bishop also respect any peoples view then, like the view that the earth is flat? Or is she talking a stance about a relative respect? If so, why is her measurement of what and what not should be respected more correct or proper than Dawkins?
What about instead saying: " People should not be offended so easily" ??
Would that lead to less or more conflicts?
jomen112 5 months ago
" Why not?" at 4:10 is a perfectly justified question from Dawkins because we want an assurance that religious people wont change their "absolute" moral standard depending on how the winds blow for the day but dependent on sound rational reasoning.
Any moral cherry picking religious person that can not address the question "why not?" has not a clear system of believes he can base and justify his morality on and hence is a person which moral values cannot be trusted.
jomen112 5 months ago
Richard vs all. Richard wins
mewanafly 6 months ago
4:04 "okay" LOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
keisi2009 6 months ago
I refuse to give religious people any respect for their beliefs and I applaud anyone who mocks them for it.
Elu112 6 months ago
Sigh, he's stating out facts and suddenly he's disrespectful -.-
RustlessPotato 6 months ago
@RustlessPotato pointing out what exactly is in the bible is disrespectful to religious people because your showing them how insane they are and they don't like that and why would they
jimmy2k4o 5 months ago
@jimmy2k4o
People insecure in their beliefs system does sometimes feel (or in some cases often feel) offended by critical arguments about their beliefs. If you on the other hand are secure in your belief system you may disagree or even dislike the critics towards it but you will not fell offended - because why would you need to?
jomen112 5 months ago
The religious people think he's being intolerant because they're embarrassed that he's so blatantly right and they've been cornered with nothing intelligent to say on the matter so they get defensive and call him arrogant and strident. We're so lucky we live in a society where Dawkin can talk like this. If this had been a few thousand years ago Tony Burke would have called Dawkin a blasphemer and he'd be sent to the gallows. Who knows how many have died in the name of truth.
endxofxeternity 6 months ago
@endxofxeternity Exactly, religious nuts have killed countless people for there nonreligious thoughts for centuries. Now its time believers shut up and let atheists speak about the truth. I for one couldn't care less if they think we are being disrespectful. We've had 2000 years of there bull', enough is enough
dustziggy 6 months ago
Thats why he is a minister for Agriculture and not an Minister of Common sense and logic.
tiltinghard 6 months ago
Im an atheist but i would not mind having an afterlife. Living for ever could be quite interesting. As long as i can end it whenever i want by jumping in a star.
ps: I would not mind being a D&D Wizard or a comic book superhero either.
Separating the facts from fantasy is what makes us atheists.
tilemacro 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
tilemacro 6 months ago
is steve fielding retarded? im not joking, im genuinely curious
walka112 6 months ago 2
good to see rabbi jacky there............
pakijew4 6 months ago
The problem with speaking about "intolerance" when it comes to religious beliefs versus science is that the standard is twofold for religion in comparison to any other aspect of human study. Science bows to evidence. Religion trudges on despite of evidence. If someone makes wild claims under the umbrella of religion, the taboo is that it is intolerant to question those claims. Dawkins is merely advocating that religion be subject to the same critical analysis as every other aspect of our lives.
CapeAndCowl87 6 months ago
Richard is being too soft on this one, the true is that no religious belief of any kind deserves any respect but lots of ridicule and contempt.
fidenful 7 months ago
I have watched many many many debates like this on You Tube and other forums. Never has any religious apologist made any claim or argument that has defeated the athiest viewpoint, never. It just doesn't (can't?) happen. This series of clips shows how the religious can only speak from a perspective of ignorance and gullibility.
keyfax123 7 months ago
Tony is an asshole
thespot09 7 months ago
He should be disrespecting it since it's the polar opposite of logic. "I'm responsible for creating bad people, so I better let them kill me...but not really."
S24995 7 months ago
3.31 You've got to love Fielding's face after hearing that question XD
drgnight17 7 months ago
Dawkins summarized the events of the New Testament coldly and without the emotional "umph" that Christians usually give it. Because it is rarely heard in that context, it is easy to hear it as though it is being ridiculed. If it sounds that way its because IT IS ridiculous to think an omnipotent God had to suffer for any reason in order to accomplish a goal, let alone one that revolved around saving Christians from Hell.
NotQuiteGobShite 7 months ago
Sorry Biship. I am not going to respect the views of a homophobic or a racist. Respect is earned. Not taken. What I won't do, however, is descend into a madman yelling profanities and throwing my faeces because I disagree.
carrotxdawg 7 months ago
Good on you Mr. Burke, unlike other Christians in the panel who sat on the fence, you gave it to Dawkins for being disrespectful. Dawkins is arrogant and intolerant, and there is something really sad about someone who makes it their life mission to spread hate. A man who gives his life for not one of his friends, but ALL of his friends, isn't that the ultimate sacrifice and proof of his love? The trouble is Mr.Dawkins, what would you know about sacrifice? You love yourself too much
MsTxibi 8 months ago
@MsTxibi Not true. It's just that Dawkins has been debating in US lately and in there arrogance and agressiveness are only ways to accommodate into TV-debates. Hopefully he will recover.
RusiTonkkari77 7 months ago
dawkins is ahead of the game, just get rid of religions.
cptmuska 8 months ago
God i love Dawkins takes my words right out of my mouth=)
''God'' :P
As Dawkins said with god putting him self on earth and u know sacrifice him self what kind of sacrifice is that he knows he will go to heaven again and rule the world.
And i think god can make him self feel no pain (while being tortured) xD
Youtasky 8 months ago 17
@Youtasky whatta sacrifice that is, being the ruler of the world! I can't believe Dawkins didn't take that angle!
SuperMemzzz 5 months ago
the post-1917 regimes in Russia went after the Church simply because they saw religious organizations as nothing else but " the organs of bourgeois reaction" which in Russia was in fact true to a large extend. It was not that hey I'm an atheist therefore I will kill priests but hey I hate the bourgeoisie therefore I will kill everyone who supports them. That's certainly not the "logic" of religious extremists. Rather "I will burn you alive because you don't follow my religion, period".
sondano 8 months ago
Steve is so fun to watch dance around answering any questions
alanjavis 8 months ago
lets see how julia bishop actually adds to the agrument that professor dawkins was making. she states that the bible is a text 2000 years old so we dont believe in putting gay people to death anymore. I'm sorry but if the bible is the word of a perfect god then shouldnt those words in it be perfect? i mean if you call yourself a christian you have to believe that killing gay people is ok. and none of them do. so how can they use the bible as reference? they cant!!!! bloody idiots. grow up
CloverCATOREE 9 months ago
6:46 : "shit he is right, that doesn't make any sense" lol
sor8an 9 months ago
rechard 10 everyone else 0
sor8an 9 months ago
WTF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE EXCEPT RICHARD CAN GO GET FUCKED. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE RESPECT THAT RELIGION DEMANDS WITH NO LOGICAL REASONS FOR DEMANDING IT. BOURKE, YOU CAN SHOVE THAT RESPECT UP YOUR ASS. RICHARD WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND YOU KNOW IT. AND IT IS RIDICULOUS, LETS FACE IT FUCKING HELL! GROW UP PEOPLE PLEASE!
CloverCATOREE 9 months ago
tony bourke and dawkins are on two VERY DIFFERENT intellectual levels
ausoul 9 months ago
tony burke is a fucking clown
TheKnackerboy 9 months ago 2
Dawkin's reasoning is still water-tight as expected. I love this guy. This isn't even a debate for him, he's just strolling through. lol
Doublicon 9 months ago
Ugh, why on earth didn't Dawkins flat out tell them that there *doesn't* need to be a respect for ridiculous, unfounded beliefs? The woman on the far right and the man on the far left both took up the flag of "we need to respect each others' beliefs" and Dawkins completely let that issue go by not saying that no, we don't need to respect all beliefs equally and some beliefs, like religious ones, deserve our scorn and contempt. I'm not a fan of the backpedaling he seemed to be doing instead
johnjsal 9 months ago
I like Dawkins, but him saying "What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that" was sort of a very personal-opinion sort of thing that everyone else sort of leeched onto as a means of maneuvering around the actual substance behind this religion/science debate.
'tis a shame. Would have liked to see people squirm a little bit more under this sort of questioning.
Darthcaboose87 9 months ago
I find that whenever you give voice to how unconvincing you find theistic claims, they throw a label of "disrespectful" at you. While they do not realize what they are saying, unraveling it you realize that any dissenting opinion on values voiced in opposition to theirs is considered "disrespect". It is a loaded phrase.
"Showing respect to all people's beliefs" is the motto of those promoting middle ground fallacies and those who wish to avoid confrontation. It flips dissent into antagonism.
Kreadus005 9 months ago
yeah sure i'll sacrifice myself if i get to come back to life 3 days later.
not much of a sacrifice after all, is it?.
giantturdburglar 9 months ago
lol @ Tony Burke for saying that what religions need is religious tolerance. You might as well just not be religious.
aimoto 9 months ago
I love the politician's visible wince at 3:08
zacharyvince 9 months ago
As an atheist, I don't just like Dawkins because he is a popular atheist. I like him because he is real and doesn't seem to take this life so seriously when he discusses it, unlike these Christians who need to be offended by hearing their own doctrine because it clashes with societies interests. Don't get me wrong, he can speak seriously; but he is often more laid back because he seems to know something the religious do not.
TheUlalume 9 months ago
Why is the audio so quiet?
eflychik167 9 months ago
fact: 95% of christians have not read the bible.
Robstailey 9 months ago
@Robstailey Fact: 84.392 (to the nearest decimal point) of statistics are made up on the spot.
Though I expect your made up statistic is closer to the truth than mine :).
nafester 9 months ago
@Robstailey True! I've been an atheist since I was 8 years old and I seem to know much more about Christianity than any of the Christians I meet.
TheRadicalLiberal 9 months ago
as much as i love dawkins he truely doesn't have the charismatic wit that hitchens has for stomping religious retards into the ground
blazontroll 9 months ago
Damn Christians.
LordUa437 9 months ago
I can't help but get the feeling that Richard didn't explain the silliness of the religious beliefs enough. It's not so much that god sacrificed himself, but rather that god sacrificed himself to himself to fulfill a law that he wrote himself. Could god not have said "Ok, everyone is forgiven if they're sorry" ? If not, then he's not all powerful, if so then he's an idiot.
Kruglord 9 months ago 34
@Kruglord hes done it 1000's of times i think hes just bored of repeating himself
ThanksDoctorThoctor 6 months ago
@Kruglord or he could have just gotten it right from the beginning. Or after Adam and Eve, or after the flood and so on. How many times has good old god hit the reset button? And that's not counting the five or six times that far better educated people than me believe the Earth was hit by an asteroid, iced over, or super volcanoes nearly cleansed all life off of the face of the planet. But those things happened more than six to ten-thousand years ago so maybe they don't count as having happened.
NoNeedForGod 5 months ago
@tjerkwad I agree. But that's where they took offense. He put a negative judgement on their beliefs.
drummerkid1993 9 months ago
What's more, god, all powerful immortal, briefly becomes human, spends a few unpleasant hours (out of his eternity) pegged to a stick, lays on a slab of stone for a few days, then goes home. That's not a sacrifice, that's a temporary inconvenience.
AarowSwift 9 months ago 2
Respect must be earned, not given away.
AarowSwift 9 months ago
Being offended is all religious people have left
aegisgfx 9 months ago 2
Disrespect to religion: Stating what religious people actually believe. Do this and you're just being a jerk.
Mindaslight 9 months ago
What a bunch of whiny bitches.
TheZombieAtheist 9 months ago
"People should respect other people's views".
Yes. They should. But only when those views are RESPECTABLE! Christianity is NOT a respectable view!
Smudge4C 9 months ago
To be fair to the christians, he did call it a 'deprived notion'
drummerkid1993 9 months ago
Love how Dawkins just owned them all. They have nothing.
elpeetwa 9 months ago
I love how when they get schooled they just cover their ears and claim disrespect
DsyelxicBob 9 months ago
If someone offered to kill himself slowly and painfully, stating "I'm doing this for you," I wouldn't call it admirable, I'd be horrified, screaming at him to stop! Those who seek solace in that, if you don't mind me saying, it's sadism. In the purest definition of the word, it is taking pleasure in the pain of another.
VintageBalderdash 9 months ago
Christians are so gay!
Crystalgirlist 9 months ago
VERY brave and composed man is Dr Dawkins
1BustedMyth 9 months ago 2
Jebus, poor Dawkins. He's being lectured as though he is three (being nice to other three year olds). He has to get tired of always been up next to religious apologists and religious nuts.
AcroStigma 9 months ago
I love how Christians talk about levels of respect and tolerance. What fucking hypocracy.
DarkHorse0863 9 months ago
Rcihard Dawkings alone outweighed the rest of the panel. They didn't have anything to say but crap, and tiptoeing around the beliefs not to say something too stupid.
raminsh1 9 months ago
Fucking agriculture cunt lol
hectichorse 10 months ago
Dawkins is so reasonable! I admire him!
carlingskie2 10 months ago
people really live in the dreamland of ignorance.. truth can hurt mate...
ComputerScience54 10 months ago
Dawkins raised the point in another video that religion is the only topic where whenever you just asking an unpleasent question its offensive. It is harsh and disrespectful to faith just to ask or to argument. And i took this as normal. Not anymore.
AxeHomeless 10 months ago 2
How can the question "What kind of a depraved notion is that?" be disrespectful? He thinks that the notion is depraved. He does not think that the people in this panel is depraved.
I just can't stand the religious arrogance, which says that "criticizing a person's religion, is the same as criticizing the person, as a person".
They automaticly place themselves in a position where their views on the universe can't be criticized. That's really arrogant to me!
Kornsirkler 11 months ago
@Kornsirkler But the lady and the guy accused Dawkins of being disrespectful towards other people's views and religious beliefs, which I think was a fair assessment.
No he wasn't ridiculing the people themselves but that's not the point. Calling a belief "horrible" and "depraved" can be justifiably labeled as disrespectful.
Tride 10 months ago
@Tride So, if I call your political views "depraved", am I disrespectful? Why does religion get away with "you must respect it, otherwise you don't deserve real argument!" Im so sick and tired of that!
Kornsirkler 10 months ago
@Kornsirkler Yes, "depraved" is a pretty insulting word to pin on someone else's opinions. I think there is such a thing as disagreeing without disrespecting. Poor word choice can make a simple disagreement sound like an attack.
Tride 10 months ago
@Tride No it's not insulting as long as the word doesn't describe the person. To call an OPINION without evidence depraved is not something to whine about, and a belief is JUST that! An OPINION without evidence.
Kornsirkler 10 months ago
@Kornsirkler If I called your opinion "stupid" you would get mad. But if I politely explained why I disagreed with your opinion without throwing around derogatory words then you would be more receptive.
By the same token, Dawkins could have communicated his feelings without resorting to words like "depraved," but he chose to go the more abrasive route.
People take it personally when you insult their opinions, beliefs, and tastes because those things are a part of who you are as a person.
Tride 9 months ago
@Tride I would be equally mad if you politely said that you disagree without explaining why.. That's the reason to be offended by a person who criticize your meaning or view/belief. If you call my nose or face depraved and explain why, then I can fully understand that a person still feel offended. But to call a view/belief depraved and then explain why is not something to be personally offended by!
Kornsirkler 9 months ago
@Kornsirkler My point is that, in the context of a disagreement, there are certain words that tend to trigger negative reactions. I suspect that even if I did call your opinions stupid or depraved and then went on to elaborate why I think that way, you would still get mad.
If you really don't get mad about things like that, then great. I wish more people were like you. But most people are not like that, and it's not unusual for people to get offended by the specific WORDS or TONE you use.
Tride 9 months ago
blessed are the Greek?!
andrewbeit1 11 months ago
Do you want seriously offend a religious person?
Read out loud the verse from his very own holy book! Exactly as it is stated in there.
Make sure you are well prepared for the hell you have just evoked by your immoral deed!
MrJurekGG 11 months ago
Dawkins did "disrespect" their beliefs when he said "What kind of a depraved notion is that?" I've had friends tell me I remind them of Richard Dawkins, so you can presume what my views/opinions are. I've also seen this video before and I was on his side the first time. I caught what the panel was referring to this time around though.
Codester145 11 months ago
All politicians talks bullshit!!!
rool04ae 11 months ago
thanks for posting
susanyana 1 year ago
Blessed are the cheesemakers!
Experiment47 1 year ago
@Experiment47 I don't think that was meant to be taken literally: I'm sure it refers to all producers of dairy products.
:-p
Xenophile665 11 months ago
Joseph Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, he did the things he did were because of his own personal views, wants and needs. He burnt down churches not because he thought god was bs but because they were a threat to his power.
MunisAwesome 1 year ago
@MunisAwesome
100% agree.
You shouldn't be in the tyrant business if you don't realize that, the very first thing you do, once you reach the throne, is to eliminate the competition to that throne. Whatever that competition should be. A political party or religious cult.
How to do it? You can do it like Hitler did. Having them ( the church) on his side. Or, do like Stalin did. Using their very own methods. Proclaiming himself a god! Untouchable, megalomaniacal god. The only one god e' basta!
MrJurekGG 11 months ago
This is bullshit.
Religion deserves no respect whatsoever.
Respect is to be earned not just handed out like a candy.
orks2 1 year ago
tony burke is burke by name and a burk by nature
kyototakeshi1 1 year ago
This issue of "respecting other people's beliefs." Simply put, I respect someone's right to believe what they want; but why should I respect the belief itself, when it is based on irrationality?
Do Christians think Jews and Muslims are going to Heaven? "No." Why not? "Because those other religions don't acknowledge Christ as God."
If that's what Christians believe, then that shows their disrespect for the beliefs of Muslims and Jews. (They just don't like to say it on the air.)
Xenophile665 1 year ago
People have NOT committed atrocities in the name of atheism - they did it in the name of totalitarianism, imperialism communism, etc.. Atheism is a facet of some totalitarian modes of government, but it was not the cause of their atrocities.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665
100% agree.
You shouldn't be in the tyrant business if you don't realize that, the very first thing you do, once you reach the throne, is to eliminate the competition to that throne. Whatever that competition should be. A political party or religious cult.
How to do it? You can do it like Hitler did. Having them ( the church) on his side. Or, do like Stalin did. Using their very own methods. Proclaiming himself a god! Untouchable, megalomaniacal god. The only one there is !
MrJurekGG 11 months ago
This is an hour of complete ownage by Dawkins,
Calm, clear, concise and brutal. he should sit back and be proud of himself
davemcd85 1 year ago
haha, I love how richard doesn't pay attention at 4:53
henrikstaaf 1 year ago
Richard is phenomenal and entertaining.The perfect modern teacher.
Athenian888 1 year ago
It's quite funny, this is the exact same way and Scientologist or a Mormon reacts when someone cites there own religion to them. If you don't like it, then perhaps you should just leave?
makka432 1 year ago
They were all Dawkins slaves !
lahaf82 1 year ago
christian getting offended at hearing there own beliefs, lmao
biggidy1st 1 year ago 126
@biggidy1st
-
No, they were offended at Dawkins mocking the idea of the atonement ("couldn't God think of a better way than torturing himself?" etc), not at the doctrine itself. Dawkins started back-peddling so fast that his chair would rolled backwards into the wall if it had wheels.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010 lol, yeah man, just keep telling yourself that
biggidy1st 10 months ago
@biggidy1st
-
=/ Ooookkk... Nice "talking" to you.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010
The question still stand though... "Couldn't God-" (In all his wisdom & power) "think of a better way than torturing himself?" - I personally don't feel that this is an offensive question. It's a very accute question from a genuinley curious mind. Haven't you ever wondered this yourself? Even when I was a christian I would ponder on this and pray for an answer. They were just playing the "I'm offended" card to deflect. Made them look really weak & pathetic.
newloser 10 months ago
@newloser
-
Again, it wasn't his question they found offensive. It was the way he asked. He wasn't being inquisitive, he was mocking.
In any case, what would "better" be? This plan achieved its purpose perfectly. Therefore, there's nothing better to be done.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@biggidy1st
It was more the context, but Dawkins had a point
Cal6009 9 months ago
arrogant christian idiots
ThePhil909 1 year ago 5
@ThePhil909
I'm usually not game when it comes to throwing around the word "idiot" but in this case they are most certainly deserving. "You're going to hell - but please don't insult me by questioning my god" and this is acceptable to them. They were being insulting to the intelligence of all those who listened to them and their drivel. I don't care how you christians verbally defend yourselves, just don't use the pitty party card, those burnt in the name of Christ weren't given such luxuries.
newloser 10 months ago
@newloser um r u agreeing with me? or oh yes u r sweetas i thought u were having a go with me, funny u added on my 1 lil, yeah ay no1 really knows ay what ever is what so yeah i DON'T KNOW IF HE EXISTS WHO CREATED WHAT ETC.. that sounds normal to me not MY GOD THIS (as tho u know for certain)
ThePhil909 10 months ago
The thing that i find so amusing (is amusing the right word? Strange at least) is that despite it seeming like Dawkins is alone up there EVERY TIME he makes a point against religion the audience applauds him so much longer and louder than they do the other panelists.
jib1000 1 year ago 45
@jib1000 Thats because most of the audience agrees with Dawkins. Only a very brave politician would say they are atheist, a politician that will openly criticise religion is even more rare.
tubester4567 1 year ago 28
@tubester4567 The PM has said she is athiest.
2010pies 1 year ago
@tubester4567
Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, openly declared her atheism before getting put into power by the electorate against a Christian opponent, and despite her party being unpopular.
jazzx251 1 year ago
@tubester4567 Well Julia is an atheist. Although her approval ratings a crap due to her being a crap PM, I doubt its got anything to do with her religion. In Australia, I don't really think a politician needs to be religious to be succesful.
michaelk23 9 months ago
@tubester4567 I agree with dawkins, but the clapping really got on my nerves. They agree quite vocally with anything the even resembled supporting atheism.
UndeadFatality 9 months ago
Dawkins simply states the doctrine of the new testament. It is matter of fact. Somehow that is showing disrespect? It is disrespect because those who hold those views are embarrassed by it when confronted. Therefore they feel they are being disrespected for being put on the spot.
dtrance 1 year ago
If someone comes to me and says "I think the earth is flat, the moon landing was a lie, and CIA aliens killed JFK", no one would hold it against me if I laughed in his face. If someone comes up and says, "I think the universe was created by my invisible friend for the sole purpose of housing the human race," and I laugh in his face, I get called disrespectful. Double standards suck.
16randomcharacters 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. Richard Dawkins, the lab scientist of Oxford is arguably the most conceited character among all evolutionists. Frivolously barbed and proud of it; a petty although quaint, aggressive anti-God freak; a venomous, religion scoffer; Christian-phobic, prejudiced and narcissistic being, a theological and philosophical ignoramus, a megalomaniac orator, a temperamental and malevolent prima-donna.
mandarino53 1 year ago
Frightening that people still use Stalin as an example of Godlessness. Stalin was a Czar.......he WAS the god.
rep300 1 year ago
Tony Burke is smarmy little dick.
ElGeecho 1 year ago
YAYYYY, THE FUCKING MAO/STALIN CHESTNUT!!!!! I NEVER GET TIRED OF THAT SHIT!!!!!
Gumbyrearygood 1 year ago 4
VOLUME!!!
TheOnemandigitaljam 1 year ago
I used to have some respect for Tony Burke but to see this twit go up against Richard Dawkins shows a complete lack of judgement... give up Tony.
MrEmuexport 1 year ago
I'm shocked that these people are members of the Australian parliament. Not only are their debating skills are non existent, but their beliefs are ridiculous. It's almost as though they'd never thought about questioning them until now. Unbelievable!
desao3 1 year ago
I love richards face at the beginning of this video. he's like "i cant believe I have to fight the mao/stalin argument again, WTF!?"
mad0th4 1 year ago
The word 'pillock' could have been invented for Steve Felding
davewatcher 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins did not ridicule Christian doctrine!!
I did rewind. At no time did he ridicule he just stated Christian doctrine.
Uncomfortable wasn't it.....
Richard was magnificent and knocked all the other members into a cocked hat.
tubalooney 1 year ago 5
I believe the exact words were, "What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?" referring to the Christian doctrine.
CoffeeStain33 1 year ago
Its honestly becoming a joke. "Respect and tolerance for religion?", well if they stopped trying to pushing their beliefs into schools, non-believers, and most importantly on their own children, no-one would give a damn what you believe in. This panel is a joke - obviously outmatched in terms of logic, reason and ability to argue. Their mindset: "No let's not debate what Dawkins says, instead lets argue about how he says it." It doesn't surprise me Dawkins doesn't do these type of debates often.
Chimpdaddy 1 year ago
He was asked to listen to his own words as well, and I like to imagine I saw a flicker of doubt in Dawkins' eyes. "Did I say it differently?" I replayed it a few times, and no, Professor Dawkins, at no point did your tone, inflection, or even your facial expression change to suggest you were attacking or ridiculing.
The only thing that changed was the attitude, and reception of your religious (religious moderate) listeners. What a brilliant example of how religion is defended. Without trying.
UnitedKingdomify 1 year ago 5
wtf. All vs Dawkins?... ? .? ... ?
Lachy101 1 year ago
Dawkins: Look lets all admit that there are horrible things in the bible.
Everyone else: HERP DERP
farnium 1 year ago 5
When they ask if god's sacrifice isn't admirable, the correct answer is "WHAT SACRIFICE?"
Dying for 3 days is not a sacrifice. Jesus didn't lost something, he even ended up better than before: being a god.
And what exactly is the relation between murdering some dude and becoming good again? How does that work?
pyramidheadrocks 1 year ago 7
"Christ loved me, and died for me" - that's pretty much the whole thing, he sacrificed himself for the good of humanity. I don't understand Richard's point about that being strange and crazy to believe in.
And Julie Bishop argued fine.
binghlcrosby 1 year ago
@binghlcrosby
Because God, supposedly the most intelligent being in existence, couldn't come up with anything better than a primitive execution of either himself or his son to satisfy the sins of humanity (which he himself is keeping tally of up in heaven)
I don't understand what ISN'T crazy and strange about that.
Vire70 1 year ago 2
@binghlcrosby
To put it more simply, as "lukeism2" says below;
"...god sacrificed himself.. to himself.. to save us from himself"
Vire70 1 year ago 8
"Look, Look" here he goes again. He has absolutely no brainpower.
shakercoola 1 year ago
i feel so bad for dawkings
he's logical and reasonable and all the rest of the panel are retarded.
Hughdapu 1 year ago 79
@Hughdapu That was painful to watch. It's like an intelligent sober man trying to explain common sense to aussies. Australian politicians are completely fucked in the head, and about 15million other aussies. Dawkins is a champ for even been seen with these retards...
raptor6600gt 1 year ago
@raptor6600gt yeah dawkins is in this sense a real time traveller to the past
Serpico261 1 year ago
@Hughdapu ..actually, i think the only ones that were retarded (amongst the panel) were Julie and Tony. They showed their colors well and how easily defensive and close-minded about the subjects they were. I thought Jackie was very open-minded and, even though she has her own faith she was willing to think and discuss maturely and logically (and her kindness helps her acceptance as well). Also, even though Steven did not really get to say much, each of his responses were logical as well.
ultracloudx 1 year ago
@Hughdapu ...did i say steven? i meant patrick, the psychiatrist lol. When it comes to steven, i kinda agree with a previous comment (he's a coward) in another part, but i think he's being a lot more mature because he's not instead an aggressive religious person that obtrudes on others' views.
ultracloudx 1 year ago
@Hughdapu I wouldn't call them retarded, most of them are very intelligent, they simply have different beliefs, also the people in governement are restricted in revealing their beliefs because they want votes.
PrivateJoker17 1 year ago
Its incredible how when people of faith are confronted with the proof that their belief is ridiculous play the offense card, its really amazing why they don't give an answer, especially when they can shut Richard up simply by giving a reason why it is good for an innocent person to be tortured and punished by death for a crime that others committed. If its disrespectful to say that that is ridiculous than i have no interest in being respectful.
MaltaSauce 1 year ago 6
Yes, focus on the way Dawkins talks, not what he actually said, youll defo win then ;)
Morons.
JayDee98765 1 year ago 3
wow - that's the doctrine... THAT'S the story.. god sacrificed himself.. to himself.. to save us from himself
lukeism2 1 year ago
she's left out exodus in the new testament... i'm pretty sure paul shunned homos
lukeism2 1 year ago
If god came to earth as a mortal , as jesus , so he could be tortured and crucified , to atone for our sins. Who was he appealing to? Himself? If he was paying for our sins , who was he paying? Seems like the type of logic that an omniscient being would see right through. If he did it as an example , then couldn't he have found a less dramatic and yet more effective way to teach the lesson? Maybe it is me , perhaps I expect to much from an omniscient being.
dadylarge 1 year ago
@dadylarge Yerh, confusing isnt it.
JayDee98765 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this! I was bummed i missed this episode.
zarafimusic 1 year ago