@ReturnOfTheJam Most of Dawkins' books, if I recall, spend some time deconstructing the idea of evolution being "random". The process is nonrandomly organizing, but unguided. The analogy of a hole of limited size appears; it admits objects smaller than it's opening, but not objects larger than it's opening. It, too is a nonrandom but unguided process.
Dawkins takes great pains to stress this at every opportunity. If Boteach had read any of them, he would know he is attacking a straw man.
@necroposter (Holyknight) - Dawkins wasn't there because he had to leave to catch a flight. As it turned out, his flight was delayed and he heard Boteach's cowardly attack over the hotel video feed. Before that, he had considered Boteach a friend.
@AresRoar Dawkins is also an idiot who keeps dodging debates. If he is so righteous, why not defeat the Rabbi with SCIENCE AND REASON? Or is Dawkins' point on religion and science not coinciding wrong?
@HolyknightVader999 Dawkins has debated Boteach, you can buy the debate from Boteach's website or watch parts of it on youtube, it's an old Oxford debate. You seem to be very ill informed. I wish not to converse with you further for fear of your idiocy rubbing off on me.
@AresRoar I wasn't just talking about his debate with Boteach. Many others both Catholic and Protestant, challenged Dawkins to a debate and he kept on dodging them. Dawkins denied his debate with Boteach happened because the good rabbi whooped his ass. But he doesn't wanna debate people like D'Souza, who is an evolutionist.
@HolyknightVader999 Dawkins refuses to waste time on the disingenuous. He is entitled to that, would you as an eminent scientist bother wasting your time on people who believe the Earth is flat?
Also in the old debate Boteach did not "whoop his ass", it was a discussion but turned into an impromtu debate when Boteach started mouthing off hundreds of falsities, in the little time available Dawkins refuted him. As for Dawkins memory, this was well over 10 yrs ago- he does a lot more debates.
@AresRoar Dinesh DSouza belives in almost everything Dawkins does, save fro the "no God" thing. Even anti-Christian enlightnenment philosophes and writers believed in God. And Boteach did whoop his ass, otherwise why would Dawkins deny the debate? He could have just as easil Challenged Boteach to a debate platform where he would have the time to disprove Boteach's arguments.
@HolyknightVader999 A universe with or without God are two very very different things, that's no small disagreement. As for debating Boteach you realise that a) Richard debating him gives the clown credibility which he does not want to give him (I mean would you want him to debate those who believe in a flat earth and they do exist), and secondly because he's extremely busy. He can't just suddenly decide to debate Boteach- unlike the rabbi Dawkins is in high demand.
@AresRoar You're trying to dump all Christians into the creationist square, which is of course, unfair. Evolution gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community not because of atheists but moderate Catholics and protestants who incorporated it into their curriculum because they saw there was SOME truth to what Darwin proposed. Dawkins doesn't have a very tight schedule; he's just too busy running and hiding.
"Scientist" is a job. Of course Shmuley, isn't a scientist, that's not his job. Dawkins, on the other hand, often seems to forget what his job is, and does in fact make a large portion of "his living by talking." And for those of you demanding to see the debate itself, take it up with Dawkins, who has decided that the debate never happened. Also, if you think Dawkins should have won the debate, why has he ignored Shmuley's invitation to engage him again?
hey rabbi, Mr DAWKINS is man with education, he dosen't make his living by talking or koshering food for nut brains, so please shut up and stop BSing about something you have no idea about it
Natural selection isn't random accidents. This guy could filibuster a congregation of 90-year-old nuns to tears.
I'm learning religious people who argue against the non-religious are really projecting when they say all these weird things like 'what's the point in living', 'why have sex', 'why bother with anything', 'there would be no love', 'life is meaningless'. It's all a projection that you don't find in non-religious people anyway.
@WisdomVendor Yes, how about Fenrir and the fact that he eats Thor's daddy Odin like Pac-Man eating a blue Ghost? BTW, Jesus could just wrap Thor in a rubber coat and pulverize his head with his own hammer. End of debate.
@HolyknightVader999 that would require that jesus was not only real but also the son of god and 'god'at teh same time,, not one damn bit of proof of either , END OF DEBATE!!!!
@WisdomVendor Yes, and that's why a third of the world worships Jesus and nobody worships Thor. For all intents and purposes, he is a blond hercules with a hammer.
@WisdomVendor So that's why nobody worships Thor while 1/3 of the world worships Jesus, and another 1/6 honor him as a prophet. The lives of the believers give witness to the power of their God. When a Christian friar chopped down the tree of Thor, Thor didn't react. But every time someone raises their guns against the faith, they lose. So the God of Jesus actually exists, while Thor was just a fairy tale.
He is absolutely hilarious, he shows an excellent wit and sense of humor, I really wish he had taken after the best jews like Richard Feynman and Albert einstein and used his wit for good instead of indoctrination.
if god is real and uses people like him to represent his case, I will then go back to the god of my ancestors ZEUS and THOT. At least they had thunders, lightening and reason as ways to make themselves known, not a bunch of morons and psychos like this rabbi.
Sad however how Oxford takes this people on and leaves out real great intellectuals.
This rabbi if he is so interested in his god, should go to his god and rid us of his stupidity.
This guy didn't make a single argument in favor of religion, he just made a bunch of cornball jokes against existentialism. I think I'd do pretty dang well in a debate against this guy.
Funny, Dawkins forgot he debated Rabbi Shmuley -because most in attendance said he lost. As is typical of the New Atheists, none of the comments address what Shmuley is saying. Dawkins only attacks religion for being a delusion. Why? Why not attack marriage which many see as oppressive? Why not attack the Royal family whose atocities worldwide for 100s of years are well documented?
because marriage just like anything else is a result of human evolution. We in the light of moral development have developed what you call marriage. 2000 yrs ago there was no such thing, women did not have the same rights, even today is muslim countries they are treated as propoerty.
here is a question you can take to your god.
Do animals marry?
you religious idiots never have a cause, and cannot enter an intelligent argument without playing the comic or the idiot.
This is a perfect example of how different a scientist and a showman rabbi are in making points and critical thinking.
Every sentence this guy says is full of fallacies and lies... but he represents them in a very flashy and intresting tone I give him credit for that. But after all he is just a mediocre showman, not a scientist or philosopher, and with a very little intellectual honesty. From what he says about dawkins and evolution, it's clear that he doesn't have a clue about them at all
@drascatha He wasn't there because he can't refute them. He doesn't want to. He is all about the "I'm smarter and I don't have to debate you." That's sad.
marriage is a beneficial tradition that does not pollute the mind, religion on the other hand is stultifying and dangerous. Rabbi Schmuley does not address this in the short spaces between his tawdry stand-up routines.
funkwit (and others): If you refuse to accept the comments of "believers", how about David Berlinski, author of "The Devil's Delusion"? See what he says about belief in scientism and so on. It's not as simple as you ar suggesting.
Royalty and marriage aren't "true", therefore religion can have as much bullshit as it wants? Some social institutions are not in accordance with natural tendencies, therefore false doctrines are also acceptable?
(cont.)It's laughable when the churches turn around and say "MP's should be allowed a free vote but any religios MP's who don't vote the way we want to will be disowned." The churches seem to care more about unborn life than the suffering of thousands, if not millions, of people world wide who could be helped by stem cell research. Do you have any examples of humanism holding back scientific research? I also note you didn't offer any proof for alternative theories to evolution.
Yes, actually I have. The humanist presumption that the universe was eternal (no beginning) meant that the big bang theory was opposed for a long time. The presumption that various organs were left over remains of evolution rather than having purpose in their own right stalled investigation into what they actually did. The presumption that evolution would leave over loads of junk DNA meant that investigation into what non-coding DNA did was stalled for 20 years. Do you want me to go on?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about regarding the previous comments & Hitler, etc...I doubt Rabbi Shmuley has any sort of opinions that concede with Hitler...
However, dear Rabbi, you do scream like Hitler and sound like a shiny-suit evangelical.
The Rabbi might not be a delusional lunatic but merely a man exploiting his talents to fleece gullible people over in order to persuade them to part with their money. He seems obsessed with associating himself with public figures presumably to benefit from the publicity it would create.
Rabbi Shmuley is just another of one many religious clerics who treat their audience as if they were children. It is both degrading and embarrassing. Their perceived superiority is rude and I hate listening to it. I managed about 7 minutes of the video but could stand no more.
Maybe it was too much to compare to Hitler, but this guy shrieks frequently in an extremely annoying way. Anyway, his talk does not make too much sense, just a pile of unrelated stupid old jokes.
Well, I beg to differ. Darwinism bears no resemblance to what actually happens - neither biological nor social darwinism is an adequate explanation for human sexual behaviour - see David Stove "Darwinian Fairytales" for more (Stove was not a theist) - and the ire which Dawkins reserves for religion isn't turned on other non-scientific ideas - like antivivisectionists destroying science labs in the UK. Dawkinsites are anti-religion, not pro-science.
Actually if you'd read some of dawkins non-science book you'd see he does damn the hardcore anti-vivisectionists.
He attacks religion because he views it as a lie, a form of child abuse and a force that would still have us believing the sun goes round the earth.
Religion held back human scientific progress for over 1000 years and they tried to stop or imprison anyone who challenged their view. That's why some of us hate religion.
Religion can hold back. But then, so can humanism. And it was religion (in the form of the Protestant Reformation) which led to the explosion of modern science. Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Maxwell were all believers. Modern modern science has continued to build on their legacy whilst ignoring its foundation.
So they didn't try to imprison the lock up gallileo? Sarwin held back his thesis for many years because he was rightly scared of the reaction from the religious establishment. P.S if all the scientists you mentioned were around today they'd be atheist/agnostic. And yet again religion is trying to stifle scientific progress - the catholic church, and others, have been spreading horror stories regarding hybrid embryos to scare ppl into their way of thinking... tbc
The subtleties of church history may have escaped you, but 1) it was the catholic church, not the protestant church that locked up Galileo - I was talking about the protestant reformation, remember? 2) the reason they asked him to recant was actually - well, read it yourself - "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel. Don't rely on Brecht's "Life of Galileo", which was not impartial.
"If all the scientists you mentioned were around today, they'd be atheist/agnostic." Riiiight. Any evidence?
any evidence for god? my claim is a lot less far-fetched. face it as long as you believe a omnipotent you have some serious evidence to provide. and no god of the gaps bullshit pls
The real concern wasn't that Shmuley was said to shriek. There's a difference between academic discourse and monologue. Dawkins actually said: "What I heard over that loudspeaker was a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud." Not Richard Pryor or Ben Elton - who would have been a more realistic reference point for the monologue - but Hitler.
Nice one, prof.
And what really gets me is the number of people who won't say he was wrong.
A proposition or dogma, such as "God exists," is the sort of thing that can meaningfully be described as true or false. An institution, such as monarchy or marriage, is not. "Theism is not true" is a coherent statement; "Monogamy is not true" is not. The rabbi's whole argument is based on a basic category error.
Nice stand-up routine. I skipped through looking for the rebuttal part, but all I found was jokes and some shrieking like Hitler. Where is the rebuttal?
This guy is a complete nut. I stopped listening after he made his first point that the royal family wasn't true (ie. not real like god), I suppose he thinks that the Queen is some type of hologram? O.o
@kytok That's not what he asserted. He claims that Richard Dawkins never attacked the Royal Family tradition. After all, it would be a lie to say that there is anything special or better about their "royal" blood. Yet, Dawkins never attacks it and supports it as a cultural tradition by not questioning why it is on their money. Give or take. :)
Anyone know if we can find a video of Dawkins giving the floor to this nutjob? This guy claims for it to have been a debate, after the fact, even though he said he had material to talk about but scrapped it (@ 54 secs) in order to respond to Dawkins' arguments.
Nice job warming up the audience and mixing in a few false characterizations. I have to watch the next ten minutes to see if he makes a single valid point.
richard, I've always found that the most fascinating thing: are people like Shmuley just being obtuse? Are they deliberately misrepresenting the claims evolution makes, or do they really not know what it's about?
I can cut them some slack if they never learned it themselves, but if they DO know better and are deliberately taking advantage of peoples poor sci education, that is truly disgusting.
Since Hitchens pointed out that Gould was obviously a pro-evolutionist and punctuated equilibrium is evolution,and yet he repeats his mistake the same way,it leaves us with one conclusion.
Good to "see" you again. It really baffles me. This is literally high school biology ... he must know his statement is false. However, if he knows it is false, he must realize he is not going to be persuasive with knowledgeable people. Rather he will be dismissed as simply not knowing what he is talking about. Sadly, this enviably leads me to your point ... taking advantage of people with a poor science background. Happy to be a big fish in a small pond? What do you think?
Space does not permit me to refute this, but evolution is not a scientific fact. It's still got its holes and problems. It still can't explain *exactly* how life started in the first place. Amongst other things.
At best, evolution is only a plausible theory, but nothing more.
Evolution is rubbish. Doesn't make and ounce of sense in its truest definition. Sure, everthing "evolves" meaning it adapts, but we did not evolve from a single species. God is the creator. Period.
Any proof of that? And don't you dare refer to the bible. I want independent, falsifiable proof.
You see I don't think you have a clue what scientists mean by theory. it'd not like layman having a theory of their favourite football team winning or a that it might rain tomorrow. A scientific theory generally has decades of proof and fieldwork behind it and it has been tested over and over.
Do you not believe in gravity just because it's a theory? or nuclear power just because it's a theory?
no it didn't happen by chance. it happened over millions of years of cumulative mutation ran through the filter of natural selection. it didn't just spring into existence like god supposedly did, oh sorry he was alays there, that's much more credible. right?! If you're going to criticise evolution at least have a half decent idea of how it works rather than spouting outdated and discredited BS!
This rabbi is rebellion against God this america makes them all stupid, speak nicely and politely be a spiritual human not an abused animal.
SomeUser9753 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Most of Dawkins' books, if I recall, spend some time deconstructing the idea of evolution being "random". The process is nonrandomly organizing, but unguided. The analogy of a hole of limited size appears; it admits objects smaller than it's opening, but not objects larger than it's opening. It, too is a nonrandom but unguided process.
Dawkins takes great pains to stress this at every opportunity. If Boteach had read any of them, he would know he is attacking a straw man.
Crumplepunch 6 months ago
"Evolution is the opposite of random" - Richard Dawkins
caFexpo00 8 months ago
@necroposter (Holyknight) - Dawkins wasn't there because he had to leave to catch a flight. As it turned out, his flight was delayed and he heard Boteach's cowardly attack over the hotel video feed. Before that, he had considered Boteach a friend.
drascatha 11 months ago
@drascatha Well they could debate through youtube or teh internets. He doesn't.
HolyknightVader999 10 months ago
Apart from stand-up, what did he say ?
nordhorny 1 year ago
Dawkins is an anti-monarchist who is in a pro republican group in the UK. So Boteach's first point is BS.
AresRoar 1 year ago
@AresRoar Dawkins is also an idiot who keeps dodging debates. If he is so righteous, why not defeat the Rabbi with SCIENCE AND REASON? Or is Dawkins' point on religion and science not coinciding wrong?
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
@HolyknightVader999 Dawkins has debated Boteach, you can buy the debate from Boteach's website or watch parts of it on youtube, it's an old Oxford debate. You seem to be very ill informed. I wish not to converse with you further for fear of your idiocy rubbing off on me.
Good day.
AresRoar 9 months ago
@AresRoar I wasn't just talking about his debate with Boteach. Many others both Catholic and Protestant, challenged Dawkins to a debate and he kept on dodging them. Dawkins denied his debate with Boteach happened because the good rabbi whooped his ass. But he doesn't wanna debate people like D'Souza, who is an evolutionist.
HolyknightVader999 9 months ago
@HolyknightVader999 Dawkins refuses to waste time on the disingenuous. He is entitled to that, would you as an eminent scientist bother wasting your time on people who believe the Earth is flat?
Also in the old debate Boteach did not "whoop his ass", it was a discussion but turned into an impromtu debate when Boteach started mouthing off hundreds of falsities, in the little time available Dawkins refuted him. As for Dawkins memory, this was well over 10 yrs ago- he does a lot more debates.
AresRoar 9 months ago
@AresRoar Dinesh DSouza belives in almost everything Dawkins does, save fro the "no God" thing. Even anti-Christian enlightnenment philosophes and writers believed in God. And Boteach did whoop his ass, otherwise why would Dawkins deny the debate? He could have just as easil Challenged Boteach to a debate platform where he would have the time to disprove Boteach's arguments.
HolyknightVader999 9 months ago
@HolyknightVader999 A universe with or without God are two very very different things, that's no small disagreement. As for debating Boteach you realise that a) Richard debating him gives the clown credibility which he does not want to give him (I mean would you want him to debate those who believe in a flat earth and they do exist), and secondly because he's extremely busy. He can't just suddenly decide to debate Boteach- unlike the rabbi Dawkins is in high demand.
AresRoar 9 months ago
@AresRoar You're trying to dump all Christians into the creationist square, which is of course, unfair. Evolution gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community not because of atheists but moderate Catholics and protestants who incorporated it into their curriculum because they saw there was SOME truth to what Darwin proposed. Dawkins doesn't have a very tight schedule; he's just too busy running and hiding.
HolyknightVader999 9 months ago
"Scientist" is a job. Of course Shmuley, isn't a scientist, that's not his job. Dawkins, on the other hand, often seems to forget what his job is, and does in fact make a large portion of "his living by talking." And for those of you demanding to see the debate itself, take it up with Dawkins, who has decided that the debate never happened. Also, if you think Dawkins should have won the debate, why has he ignored Shmuley's invitation to engage him again?
TheOctopus3 1 year ago 5
hey rabbi, Mr DAWKINS is man with education, he dosen't make his living by talking or koshering food for nut brains, so please shut up and stop BSing about something you have no idea about it
netam1000 1 year ago
@netam1000 Then why does Dawkins keep dodging debates? He's an intellectual weakling! He proves it through his cowardice.
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
@netam1000 So is the Rabbi. Clerics often recieve greater education to explain as to why God made cancer.
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
Do we have the Dawkins clips from this?
Natural selection isn't random accidents. This guy could filibuster a congregation of 90-year-old nuns to tears.
I'm learning religious people who argue against the non-religious are really projecting when they say all these weird things like 'what's the point in living', 'why have sex', 'why bother with anything', 'there would be no love', 'life is meaningless'. It's all a projection that you don't find in non-religious people anyway.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
All he does is tell jokes but makes no convincing arguments of any kind.
cityofimmigrants 1 year ago
These arguments are VERY STUPID. Shmuley sucks.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
My god is thor, and he has a hammer.
Jesus was nailed to a cross, any questions?
WisdomVendor 2 years ago
hahahahaha
robin1826 2 years ago
@WisdomVendor Yes, how about Fenrir and the fact that he eats Thor's daddy Odin like Pac-Man eating a blue Ghost? BTW, Jesus could just wrap Thor in a rubber coat and pulverize his head with his own hammer. End of debate.
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
@HolyknightVader999 that would require that jesus was not only real but also the son of god and 'god'at teh same time,, not one damn bit of proof of either , END OF DEBATE!!!!
WisdomVendor 11 months ago
@WisdomVendor Yes, and that's why nobody worships Thor while 2 billion worship Jesus.
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
@WisdomVendor Yes, and that's why a third of the world worships Jesus and nobody worships Thor. For all intents and purposes, he is a blond hercules with a hammer.
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
@WisdomVendor So that's why nobody worships Thor while 1/3 of the world worships Jesus, and another 1/6 honor him as a prophet. The lives of the believers give witness to the power of their God. When a Christian friar chopped down the tree of Thor, Thor didn't react. But every time someone raises their guns against the faith, they lose. So the God of Jesus actually exists, while Thor was just a fairy tale.
HolyknightVader999 10 months ago
He is absolutely hilarious, he shows an excellent wit and sense of humor, I really wish he had taken after the best jews like Richard Feynman and Albert einstein and used his wit for good instead of indoctrination.
SmilingJack100 2 years ago
shmuley is an idiot.
if god is real and uses people like him to represent his case, I will then go back to the god of my ancestors ZEUS and THOT. At least they had thunders, lightening and reason as ways to make themselves known, not a bunch of morons and psychos like this rabbi.
Sad however how Oxford takes this people on and leaves out real great intellectuals.
This rabbi if he is so interested in his god, should go to his god and rid us of his stupidity.
raelko 2 years ago
Shmuley makes jokes- makes digressions & never refutes Dawkins points-
satanasdelincuente 2 years ago
This guy didn't make a single argument in favor of religion, he just made a bunch of cornball jokes against existentialism. I think I'd do pretty dang well in a debate against this guy.
GameMiestro 2 years ago
The human male is a moderately monogamous animal.
farouqnimer 2 years ago
This is a 'debate'?
deebaser 2 years ago
Funny, Dawkins forgot he debated Rabbi Shmuley -because most in attendance said he lost. As is typical of the New Atheists, none of the comments address what Shmuley is saying. Dawkins only attacks religion for being a delusion. Why? Why not attack marriage which many see as oppressive? Why not attack the Royal family whose atocities worldwide for 100s of years are well documented?
ChristianMission 2 years ago
because marriage just like anything else is a result of human evolution. We in the light of moral development have developed what you call marriage. 2000 yrs ago there was no such thing, women did not have the same rights, even today is muslim countries they are treated as propoerty.
here is a question you can take to your god.
Do animals marry?
you religious idiots never have a cause, and cannot enter an intelligent argument without playing the comic or the idiot.
raelko 2 years ago
This is a perfect example of how different a scientist and a showman rabbi are in making points and critical thinking.
Every sentence this guy says is full of fallacies and lies... but he represents them in a very flashy and intresting tone I give him credit for that. But after all he is just a mediocre showman, not a scientist or philosopher, and with a very little intellectual honesty. From what he says about dawkins and evolution, it's clear that he doesn't have a clue about them at all
veriaamiri 2 years ago
Comment removed
veriaamiri 2 years ago
"A random series of evolutionary accidents."
This fool clearly has not read the book he is fumblingly attempting to critique.
PinkandDeadly 2 years ago 5
How dishonest! Or stupid? A string of strawman arguments interspersed with third rate stand up non-comedy.
Not to mention cowardly in misrepresenting Dawkins' ideas when he wasn't there to set the record straight.
drascatha 3 years ago
@drascatha He wasn't there because he can't refute them. He doesn't want to. He is all about the "I'm smarter and I don't have to debate you." That's sad.
HolyknightVader999 11 months ago
STOP THE OCCUPATION
ParadigmaticShift 3 years ago
Hmmm funny, I thought this was a theological/philosophical debate and not a stand up routine.
Aueneye 3 years ago
Shmuley is a putz.
CHVNX 3 years ago
who would ever have any respect for him? what an idiot. religious people are definitely confused and ignorant
rochablumenkron 3 years ago
marriage is a beneficial tradition that does not pollute the mind, religion on the other hand is stultifying and dangerous. Rabbi Schmuley does not address this in the short spaces between his tawdry stand-up routines.
DuctTapeMyFace 3 years ago
this guy is an idiot
fujiujijii 3 years ago 2
Why don't we get to see Dawkins? Part one of the debate is AFTER one of them has left? Useless.
Bozeman42 3 years ago 2
Where is dawkins segment?
BLS335533 3 years ago 2
This is called "Idea City". Hilarious.
adagio2054 3 years ago
This rabbi took a wrong turn about 5,000 B.C.
adagio2054 3 years ago 2
funkwit (and others): If you refuse to accept the comments of "believers", how about David Berlinski, author of "The Devil's Delusion"? See what he says about belief in scientism and so on. It's not as simple as you ar suggesting.
paulmfernandez 3 years ago
Rabbi Shumley is a whining annoying man who makes the most futile attempts to save his quickly dying delusion.
ricardorae 3 years ago
Royalty and marriage aren't "true", therefore religion can have as much bullshit as it wants? Some social institutions are not in accordance with natural tendencies, therefore false doctrines are also acceptable?
Why does anybody listen to this dumbass?
blampow 3 years ago
Where is Dawkins' argument?
dubbdiese 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hahaha funny shit
ManRic2 3 years ago
debate? this isn't a debate...
GordonYKWong 3 years ago
If I wanted to listen to a sermon, I'd go to church. Was there a single intelligent thought in this whole 10 minute comedy routine?
vegansquared 3 years ago
He is a great comedian, but isn't idea city supposed to be about.. err.. ideas?
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago
He is a big idiot.
goldmonkey77 2 years ago
Wow! You have single-handedly convinced me religion is wrong! Touche!
PikeBeth 2 years ago
(cont.)It's laughable when the churches turn around and say "MP's should be allowed a free vote but any religios MP's who don't vote the way we want to will be disowned." The churches seem to care more about unborn life than the suffering of thousands, if not millions, of people world wide who could be helped by stem cell research. Do you have any examples of humanism holding back scientific research? I also note you didn't offer any proof for alternative theories to evolution.
funkwit5 3 years ago
Yes, actually I have. The humanist presumption that the universe was eternal (no beginning) meant that the big bang theory was opposed for a long time. The presumption that various organs were left over remains of evolution rather than having purpose in their own right stalled investigation into what they actually did. The presumption that evolution would leave over loads of junk DNA meant that investigation into what non-coding DNA did was stalled for 20 years. Do you want me to go on?
paulmfernandez 3 years ago
I don't understand what all the fuss is about regarding the previous comments & Hitler, etc...I doubt Rabbi Shmuley has any sort of opinions that concede with Hitler...
However, dear Rabbi, you do scream like Hitler and sound like a shiny-suit evangelical.
CaMaverick 3 years ago
The Rabbi might not be a delusional lunatic but merely a man exploiting his talents to fleece gullible people over in order to persuade them to part with their money. He seems obsessed with associating himself with public figures presumably to benefit from the publicity it would create.
Andrew37477 3 years ago
Rabbi Shmuley is just another of one many religious clerics who treat their audience as if they were children. It is both degrading and embarrassing. Their perceived superiority is rude and I hate listening to it. I managed about 7 minutes of the video but could stand no more.
Andrew37477 3 years ago
Maybe it was too much to compare to Hitler, but this guy shrieks frequently in an extremely annoying way. Anyway, his talk does not make too much sense, just a pile of unrelated stupid old jokes.
szoregi 3 years ago 2
Well, I beg to differ. Darwinism bears no resemblance to what actually happens - neither biological nor social darwinism is an adequate explanation for human sexual behaviour - see David Stove "Darwinian Fairytales" for more (Stove was not a theist) - and the ire which Dawkins reserves for religion isn't turned on other non-scientific ideas - like antivivisectionists destroying science labs in the UK. Dawkinsites are anti-religion, not pro-science.
paulmfernandez 3 years ago
Actually if you'd read some of dawkins non-science book you'd see he does damn the hardcore anti-vivisectionists.
He attacks religion because he views it as a lie, a form of child abuse and a force that would still have us believing the sun goes round the earth.
Religion held back human scientific progress for over 1000 years and they tried to stop or imprison anyone who challenged their view. That's why some of us hate religion.
funkwit5 3 years ago
Religion can hold back. But then, so can humanism. And it was religion (in the form of the Protestant Reformation) which led to the explosion of modern science. Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Maxwell were all believers. Modern modern science has continued to build on their legacy whilst ignoring its foundation.
paulmfernandez 3 years ago
So they didn't try to imprison the lock up gallileo? Sarwin held back his thesis for many years because he was rightly scared of the reaction from the religious establishment. P.S if all the scientists you mentioned were around today they'd be atheist/agnostic. And yet again religion is trying to stifle scientific progress - the catholic church, and others, have been spreading horror stories regarding hybrid embryos to scare ppl into their way of thinking... tbc
funkwit5 3 years ago
The subtleties of church history may have escaped you, but 1) it was the catholic church, not the protestant church that locked up Galileo - I was talking about the protestant reformation, remember? 2) the reason they asked him to recant was actually - well, read it yourself - "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel. Don't rely on Brecht's "Life of Galileo", which was not impartial.
"If all the scientists you mentioned were around today, they'd be atheist/agnostic." Riiiight. Any evidence?
paulmfernandez 3 years ago
any evidence for god? my claim is a lot less far-fetched. face it as long as you believe a omnipotent you have some serious evidence to provide. and no god of the gaps bullshit pls
funkwit5 3 years ago
The real concern wasn't that Shmuley was said to shriek. There's a difference between academic discourse and monologue. Dawkins actually said: "What I heard over that loudspeaker was a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud." Not Richard Pryor or Ben Elton - who would have been a more realistic reference point for the monologue - but Hitler.
Nice one, prof.
And what really gets me is the number of people who won't say he was wrong.
paulmfernandez 3 years ago
A proposition or dogma, such as "God exists," is the sort of thing that can meaningfully be described as true or false. An institution, such as monarchy or marriage, is not. "Theism is not true" is a coherent statement; "Monogamy is not true" is not. The rabbi's whole argument is based on a basic category error.
wmjas 3 years ago 2
For best effect, watch with the sound off.
Then ask yourself: would I buy a used car from this guy?
nrubdarb 3 years ago
Nice stand-up routine. I skipped through looking for the rebuttal part, but all I found was jokes and some shrieking like Hitler. Where is the rebuttal?
Bunk336 3 years ago 2
Weak Arguements and some shrieking.
funkygibby 3 years ago
He's a funny guy, but needs to learn some science. He does shriek doesn't he?
Masenko 3 years ago
This guy is a complete nut. I stopped listening after he made his first point that the royal family wasn't true (ie. not real like god), I suppose he thinks that the Queen is some type of hologram? O.o
kytok 3 years ago 2
@kytok That's not what he asserted. He claims that Richard Dawkins never attacked the Royal Family tradition. After all, it would be a lie to say that there is anything special or better about their "royal" blood. Yet, Dawkins never attacks it and supports it as a cultural tradition by not questioning why it is on their money. Give or take. :)
Tabanese 1 year ago
Anyone know if we can find a video of Dawkins giving the floor to this nutjob? This guy claims for it to have been a debate, after the fact, even though he said he had material to talk about but scrapped it (@ 54 secs) in order to respond to Dawkins' arguments.
Phyraxus 3 years ago
Nice job warming up the audience and mixing in a few false characterizations. I have to watch the next ten minutes to see if he makes a single valid point.
ambymacula 3 years ago
Prof. Dawkins is right, you do shriek.
Also, you build beautiful straw men.
Kergillian 3 years ago 2
Why are some geese monogamous for life? Take a walk outside, Shmuley, and ask why the geese are living a lie...
tomclicker 3 years ago
After he said evolution is random/accidental ... I stopped listening. How can these guys not know better?
richardbazinet 3 years ago
richard, I've always found that the most fascinating thing: are people like Shmuley just being obtuse? Are they deliberately misrepresenting the claims evolution makes, or do they really not know what it's about?
I can cut them some slack if they never learned it themselves, but if they DO know better and are deliberately taking advantage of peoples poor sci education, that is truly disgusting.
EndCredulity 3 years ago
Since Hitchens pointed out that Gould was obviously a pro-evolutionist and punctuated equilibrium is evolution,and yet he repeats his mistake the same way,it leaves us with one conclusion.
He knows he is wrong
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
EndCredulity,
Good to "see" you again. It really baffles me. This is literally high school biology ... he must know his statement is false. However, if he knows it is false, he must realize he is not going to be persuasive with knowledgeable people. Rather he will be dismissed as simply not knowing what he is talking about. Sadly, this enviably leads me to your point ... taking advantage of people with a poor science background. Happy to be a big fish in a small pond? What do you think?
richardbazinet 3 years ago
Rabbi I just sent you message,..:facepalm:
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
Shmuley. Shmuley! SHMOOOOOOOLEEEEEEE!
For some reason I REALLY like saying "Shmuley".
I don't agree with him AT. ALL.
...but his name amuses the HELL out of me. Heh. ;)
BionicDance 3 years ago
ONLY ad hominem attacks,and you still fail to understand evolution is a scientific fact not a moral guideline.
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago 2
Space does not permit me to refute this, but evolution is not a scientific fact. It's still got its holes and problems. It still can't explain *exactly* how life started in the first place. Amongst other things.
At best, evolution is only a plausible theory, but nothing more.
insanehusky 3 years ago
Evolution is about diversty of life not origin of life (abiogenesis)
and since you are a fan of Rabbi (apparently) and he is a fan of Stephene J Ghould,I suggest to read his paper titled "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Google it
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
Evolution is rubbish. Doesn't make and ounce of sense in its truest definition. Sure, everthing "evolves" meaning it adapts, but we did not evolve from a single species. God is the creator. Period.
socalute 3 years ago
Any proof of that? And don't you dare refer to the bible. I want independent, falsifiable proof.
You see I don't think you have a clue what scientists mean by theory. it'd not like layman having a theory of their favourite football team winning or a that it might rain tomorrow. A scientific theory generally has decades of proof and fieldwork behind it and it has been tested over and over.
Do you not believe in gravity just because it's a theory? or nuclear power just because it's a theory?
funkwit5 3 years ago
Take a look at one cell. There's your proof. It didn't happen by chance. Enjoy your delusions.
socalute 3 years ago
no it didn't happen by chance. it happened over millions of years of cumulative mutation ran through the filter of natural selection. it didn't just spring into existence like god supposedly did, oh sorry he was alays there, that's much more credible. right?! If you're going to criticise evolution at least have a half decent idea of how it works rather than spouting outdated and discredited BS!
funkwit5 3 years ago 2
"It still can't explain *exactly* how life started in the first place."
It cant and it never will.. because it is not supposed to!
Why can creationists not get this simple fact into their skulls?
TawntheAtheist 3 years ago