Good set up sons of cain, putting your own against each other in public like this to make it seem you don't "believe in Jesus" as the "Jewish Messiah." Your lie will not stand forever & His People are waking up to you & Seeing the Truth. Jesus was no Jew. The Jews are the Pharisees of Jesus' (Yahshua's) day and nothing has changed. You are of your father the devil! and the lusts of your father you will do! JESUS IS AN ISRAELITE! You have no home you vegabond Jews, sons of cain! Jn8:44,Acts19:13
@DoggyHateFire nah his point was simply that some lies we don't choose to dispute as it suits our way of life. The nation celebrated the marriage of a couple because they were 'the royals' yet contrarily hold the belief in equality. The world is on the brink of fiscal collapse or maybe just another 'credit crunch' we haven't recovered from the previous, with record high unemployment and small business suffering yet they're going on tour.
@230382hwa you could even take our pride in our sense of equality while women still don't get equal pay. We accept a class system and find new excuses for prejudice and bigotry and we even quickly take offence to foreign arranged marriage while locally teenage girls date and marry grown men and are open to the same 'risks'. Even objecting to the hijab while we sexualize our women. In other words we can accept contradictions and outright lies to suit culture.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
he dosent attack mariage because marriage doesnt hold inquisitions, or put a plane in a building or blow up abortion clinics! this lie is pretty damn violent, homophobia, sexism and arrogance, it does good yet it also does bad, one or the other, marriage is humble compared to the institution of religion
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
This guy is a joke... and a pretty effective and good one, he should go pursue a career in that field and leave profound talk for Profound smarter minds, like R. Dawkins.
Seriously??? What kind of "debate" doesn't have an opposition? Where is Richard Dawkins? This idiot is only interested in selling his books and getting some cheap laughs. If I were Jewish I'd be ashamed of this piece of shit.
10:00 yep, the elite that God made more perfect, live in castles and are overprivledged, and the ordinary folks don't -assuming u reject karma and reincarnation- which all these orthodox shits do..So where is theJustice in that MR. Rabbi Shm? Maybe you should study the qabbalah (Jewish Occultism) a bit, sometime, then you might have something resembling an argument to present..
The Jews copied their "Genesis" story from the Babalonian account of "Genesis"- Fact, not Fiction, any of you dare to admit to that???? Or do u prefer to live in a fairy tale cosmograph?
Rabi is an idiot, Penguins monogomous! Dawkins is prolly troubled by the idea of some people being higher than the other but he might not have said anything because it doesn't effect anything, Religion does. I could answer all these stupid questions by this idiot but I'm switching to something more meaningful!
This jew cant debate so he goes on a comedy show tour. Im not impressed, i am not entertained. The jew loses, humanity wins. There is no god. move along kids
im from uk. most of us could not give a damn about the royal family they are just a show, marriage is a human creation used to order society, most men like me would screw as many women as they could if they were 'allowed',
Doesn't mention how sex, family, marriage, etc, has caused adverse affects to the global population for over two thousand years the way religion has. Why bother attacking something fake that does no harm when you can attack something fake that has killed and tortured countless masses throughout time immemorial.
Monarchy isn't a belief system, Religion is. Monarchy isn't a personal choice, Religion is. Marriage is a personal choice that Mr. Dawkins made - that has no ill effect on others. Relgion does.
That said, the Rabbi is funny and intelligent - though wrong.
EVERY AGE HAS A DEVILS SUN . LIKE THE MEN THAT TELL PEOPLE TO TAKE POISON AND KILL YOUR SELF . AND YOU WILL GO TO PARADISE . AND WE PUT OUR FAITH IN A MAN . THAT CAN DIE JUST LIKE US . EVEN A FOOL CAN BE INTELLIGENT . WE ALL NO A CAR CAN NOT RUN WITH OUT A ENGINE . AND SOME ONE TO PUT THAT ENGINE TOGETHER , THE HUMAN BODY RUNS LIKE A ENGINE . SO WHO PUT OUR ENGINE TOGETHER ?
To the people who say this isn't a debate are wrong. This is the debate of the theist. Man stands at the front and tells you what to think in a witty and friendly manner whilst you sit and do what you're told.
I've not seen this all the way through but I presume he asks for cash at the end?
@hefnicity One can either use an 's' or a 'z' depending on whether you write in Uk english (the correct one 'S') or the version for simpletons (US) where the spellings have been altered to a more phonetic version to hide a lack of education.The same also applies to spelt.
I hope one has learnt something about the use of language from this dialogue we have shared and if you wish some links to the use and correct spelling of these words I will be happy to oblige
@greedoniz Actually spelt can be spelled either way in US english. I gathered you were from the UK from your first comment where you used the word "whilst". That was only reason I replied and the only reason I used the word "wanker". I just wanted to call someone a wanker. Isn't that a curse word in the UK? But seriously, he didn't tell anyone what to think. I believe that is Dawkins' job. And if Americans are simpletons. stop using our websites and technology. I'm sure they're beneath you.
Seems this gentleman is a coward if he always wondered why Dawkins "singled out" religion in their debates but he never had the courage to bring it up until a situation where Dawkins couldn't offer a rebuttal.
Theres nothing wrong with traditions, but what is the need for this fictional character we call god? By all means preserve the culture, but it is dangerous and unhealthy to believe in a fallacy and to take it as truth. The reason people don't do this is because once you take the God element out, the whole thing crashes down. But it is still a good thing to continue tradition for homage to your ancestors, BUT, don't let it be taken as fact and make rational decisions off of it.
Why does the lie of religion bother Mr. Dawkins while other "lies" such as the queen being on currency, which connotes that some people are superior to others, do not, asks Rabbit Shmuley. Well the answer, as many people have previously stated, is simple: religion, unlike the queen’s presence on currency, leads to, has lead to, and/or has been used to justify the following, which due to the sheer size is presented below:
Genocide, Suicide Bombing, Wars (such as the Crusades), Auto-Da-Fe's, Pogroms, Inquisitions, Honor Rape, Honor Killings, Honor Rape, Slavery, Racism, Apartheid, Inequality, Sexism, the treating of Women as Slaves, Slowing Down The Progression of Science and Technological Development, Inequality for Members of the LGBT Community, Suicide, Depression .... I could go on but I think I have made my point.
this guy says that dawkins isn't bothered by other issues, but how does he know? that dawkins makes evolution, creationism and religion his quest, doesn't mean he is okay with everything else.
You cannot compare 'traditions' such as the Royal Family, marriage and monogamy to faith-based religion. Tradition and faith are completely separate issues.
Apart from that this guy should do stand-up with Jackie Mason. Plus he needs to get laid!!
lol Marraige is as useless as Religion? marraige is a way to ensure that most of the males and females get a chance to reproduce and do so more successfully and hence help each other in bringing up their offspirngs more effectively. What does religion do for the same purpose?Such a contract between 2 individuals increases the chances of successful reproduction and survival of the offsprings and their genetic material in futureFailboat
All this fucking Rabbi ever does is attack those who he debates with personally, never actually debates the matter at hand, cracking jokes, pointing out flaws in the opposition rather then their side of the debate.
What a fucking joke, he should keep to his flock of whom can listen to his garbage, not the logical thinking public.
He's funny. Seems like I would hang out with this guy, get a beer, watch the game and share laughs.
As soon as he started defending religion however, I would have to hop back over the fence and whoop his ass. In fact, the point that we could share an awesome expereince together in any other sense - and religion wasn't involved - proves religion worthless in any concrete sense. Our daily lives doesn't hinge at all on the "supernatural".
Discovered in 2003: The underlying law of nature. . Discovered in 2008: The empirical process by which one may identify the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself. . This knowledge comes with no middleman wearing a fancy hat, cape, scarf, ring or necklace to obey and pay. . Think about it. . The underlying law of nature is the observable, constant, most fundamental way of all things -- all matter, energy, forms, forces, thoughts, behaviour, events and conditions. . Google it.
All of those stuck up feminist women who didnt raise their hand. I wonder how they would feel if the man in their life died in an accident the next day. For someone they supposedly dont "need", they sure would cry a lot for them when they lose them in their life.
Remember when people began killing in the name of marriage, all those millions of deaths, the crusades, the spanish inquisition and the torture, all the..... no wait, that was RELIGION.
@aveyowyns@aveyowyns I'm agnostic not athiest. The fact is killing in the name of athiesm is just as bad. What does it come down to? People with unfounded belief killing others because they don't share the same belief. Religion and athiesm are two sides of the same coin. I don't know where you got those kill counts from but you may aswell add them together for all it matters.
If you don't have an unfounded belief you can't kill because of it.
@aveyowyns Firstly I'm a man of science. If you think something is true then it's up to YOU to prove its validity. Untill you do it is by defenition unfounded. Secondly your argument was that athiests were worse than christians, why would that matter unless you thought I was an athiest? If you would have said monarchies had killed more people than religion I would have inferred you believed me to be a royalist.
And if you think something is untrue then it is up to YOU to prove its invalidity! You are the one who made the claim that religious beliefs are unfounded.
NO! Unless I make the claim that you are WRONG to believe that certain beliefs are unfounded, then I don't have to prove anything. But, as I said, YOU made the claim that these beliefs are unfounded, so you must prove so.
Because you made the claim that people of RELIGION were the ones responsible for most deaths... And I stated my antithesis, with proof...that the religious HARDLY come close to the number deaths compared to atheistic communism. I never EVER said that atheists were worst than Christians... You should know what happens when one ass-u-me's'
@aveyowyns The death toll is completely irrelevant. Take a look at the NUMBER of religious atrocities compared to the number of communist (of which the atheist culpability is highly disputable) ones. It's extremely likely that, if the religious tyrants had the technology that Stalin had, they would have killed as many, if not more.
There is NO difference between what Stalin did, and the Catholics! The Christian religious wars was not about Christianity but politics. Chrisitan Europe went to the aid of the Jews when Muslems took over Jerusalem. Catholic Europe feared that it might lose it's power over the people if they changed their religion to Protestant. EUROPE used the arbitrary idea of civilized = Christian to better suit the slaughtering of other human beings...
@aveyowyns And how is agnostism lazy? If anything its the opposite. Where I keep testing the validity of things you've read a book and said "oh, right, that must be it".
if you can't be sure of the answer, why do choose to believe one way or the other?
Agnostism is lazy because you cannot find the truth by saying that anything can be true, and then keep an endless tally of evidence for the existence of god, or the non existence of god. It is not how 'truthfinding' works, as we would notice with a scientific method. You have to take a stance: god does (or does not) exist as your foundation for finding truth. And if there is not enough evidence, or the evidence you find does not suffice, THAN you create a new stance.
"Shmuel Boteach was a rabbi who moved from America to the city of Oxford, where he lived for 11 years. He never had any official status in the University of Oxford. He arrived and bought a house. As anybody is free to do, he ran a club, which Oxford students were free to join." [2]
But why let truths stand in the way of harmless self-spin...
Schmuley was never 'A Rabbi at Oxford', as he repeatedly claims.
"The L'Chaim Society was a student society at Oxford University from 1991 to 2001, under the leadership of the original Chabad Lubavitch American Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. At its onset, the society formed part of the Chabad movement, but evolved to become an inter-faith group.[1] However, Boteach was not in any official position at Oxford University. Richard Dawkins revealed, (cont'd')
Monogamy is also almost always the preferred system for women, and that IS an adaptive tendency. Monogamy will only be reinforced as women are more empowered.
It's also a canard to say that monogamy isn't "true." Our species' history is probably polygynous, but plenty of cultures encourage monogamy because it's very stable, and many people prefer it because they are devoted. We have conflicting impulses, and people are often torn between extra-marital attractions and the companionate love they share with their spouses while still endorsing monogamy.
This is rubbish. Dawkins most certainly does "believe" in love. Understanding the physical basis of our feelings does not mean they are delusions. They are real, and that is how the biochemical processes manifest themselves. Dawkins is in love with his wife and believes in monogamy presumably because he respects women and it is fair to both partners.
Rabbi Shmuley is an IDIOT. He is obviously catering to a comic audience, and there is no real argument against Dawkins. Don't forget that Shuley is a rabbi and believes in stupid Jewish religious trash.
This man debated Dawkins at St. Catherines College, Oxford 1996 the voting in the end was clear...Dawkins was completly trashed. Later, Dawkins famous selective memory kicked in and denied this debate existed, he claimed mr. Boteach was just a chairman, the video was released and Dawkins was caught lying.
Comparing the nature of the "royal family," which is a terribly SMALL portion of the population, to the nature of believing in souls, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts... which compromises a HUGE portion of the US population. Dawkin's problem with religious mentalities is not based on the DAILY ROUTINE actions that religious believers and regular church-goers perform. His problem is first, with the young labeling of "Christian children," and second, with creationist's DEFIANCE of science.
I wouldn't know the exact words of Dawkins, but I would surmise his response to this question as marriage, love, etc. are not challenged so directly because they aren't so destructive to society. You don't see people blowing themselves and others in the name of marriage. (Granted there are deaths caused in the name of "love" but not near on the scale as those that could be attributed to religion)
Also, you don't see the scientific community being restricted on the basis of marriage or love.
This was not a debate between Dawkins and this guy. They were merely speakers and the same event and were not even right next to each other in the program. This guy is trying to boost himself and seem more important by phrasing it this way.
Shmuley is equivocating with the word 'belief'. To believe in God is a scientific propostion in that God has its own objective reality independant of humans. Like the sun, or the moon, or Mount Everest, God either exists or doesn't. This is an objective proposition.
Whereas to 'believe' in love or marriage is a completely different type of belief - it is a subjective preference, an aesthetic, a personal choice. It's not really a belief at all. It's more like 'approval'.
@MegaLotusEater, if you get married through the church, you believe in loving your partner in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, all of these things which you agree to when you get married- you should have a belief in them- ultimately you should have a belief in true love and the unity of a husband and wife. You should have a belief that infidelity is wrong and you are to remain with your partner. Those who don't believe in it should not get married, yet they do
@bazzymushpea123 : Yes, I do appreciate the significance of marriage to many people, but you are still equivocating with the word 'belief'. To believe in, say, gravity is one thing, but to believe that, say, life is worth living, or in the wonder of nature, or in the preciousness of marriage, is something quite different. The latter 'beliefs' are aesthetic preferences - matters of opinion. They are not scientific or objective truths that can be discerned through empirical means.
@bazzymushpea123. The belief in god should fall in the former category i.e. an objective as opposed to subjective truth. God either exists or he does not. It is a scientific question in the sense that there is one and only one answer.
In contrast, the belief in the importance of marriage is a subjective view. It is not an objective or scientific truth. Some people consider it superfluous. Some consider it sacred. I'm not disparaging marriage, by the way. I'm just highlighting the distinction
Everyone knows the royal family is a bunch of figure heads, and no one is blowing buses up because somebody says something bad about the royal family.
Actually funny! Yes, of course marriages are bullshit and it is one of those lies that society as a whole is too stupid to take cognizance of, but many have pointed it out in the past from Oscar Wilde to Shaw etc.... Dawkins simply does not deal with marriage, but with another lie, that is, religions. Marriages are out of his scope, and that is all. He is a great mind otherwise, and again if society were more intelligent he would have a much easier task ahead.
SO FAKE! at 1:23, u see 2012 END in background founding fathers knew about 9/11, no doubt! Its proven George Bush was the last pilot of the crashed 9/11 plane uploader of video is a known freemason this is the strongest NWO conspiracy Youtube-video just look at 00:34 wit 2 towers burnin and all seeing eye at 1:52 in right corner illuminati signs all over the place! learn the truth people 2012 will be for us or against us Clear logic look it up Biden and Obama are Pharaohs descendants
you say there is no creator ,things happened all by themselves,we have no God you say,well then complex design had no designer is like saying your computer had no builder no designer,do you even have clue as to how absurd that sounds,I left the house and came home and the pizza was done and ready to eat nobody did it but its great pizza
you say there is no creator ,things happened all by themselves,we have no God you say,well then complex design had no designer is like saying your computer had no builder no designer,do you even have clue as to how absurd that sounds,I left the house and came home and the pizza was done and ready to eat nobody did it but its great pizza
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools
lol the royal family argument is 100% strawman. he's acting as though dawkins is defending the royal family because he uses the british pound? yeah i don't need to watch the rest of this video.
This Rabbi's argument against Dawkins is silly. Dawkins has never said the royal family makes sense. Dawkins also doesn't care whether people beleive in religion...he just think it doesn't make any sense. Dawkins is a realist. This Rabbi's argument could have been easily been refuted if Dawkins was hear. He is not as brilliant as he tries to be. He has good aspirations though.
@fandaal You seem to have a very short attention span. The entire point of his 9 minute discussion is that Richard Dawkins chooses specifically, consciously to attack religion and his reasoning for it conflicts with so many more issues that are present even in his own life.
Believing in a higher being is the belief in seperation from all that exists. Hierarchies are based on seperation. The beings that created these hierarchies are the same ones that control this world today.
This is a wonderful comedy routine, but it isn't a debate, and it certainly isn't an honest attack on Dawkins.
One is certainly tempted to enquire into the style of debate, which is disengenious. ie no direct attack on the stance Dawkins has actually taken, but and enquiry into the topics Dawkins has taken no stance.
Furthermore, he fails to distinguish between sex with another person, and the regular sort of sex.
I somewhat agree that we should follow reason and evidence. That is why people should follow Judaism (or at least the 7 universal laws of Noah). "Judaism" which is really the Torah is based on scientific evidence. Check on youtube- "Rabbi Mizrachi Torah and Science , or Divineinformation". please comment back AFTER watching it.
Richard Dawkins isnt in this. booo!!!
itscat92 1 week ago
So he only debates Prof. Dawkins when he's not there?
esc0barrr 3 weeks ago
nice stand up comedy !
relhage100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good set up sons of cain, putting your own against each other in public like this to make it seem you don't "believe in Jesus" as the "Jewish Messiah." Your lie will not stand forever & His People are waking up to you & Seeing the Truth. Jesus was no Jew. The Jews are the Pharisees of Jesus' (Yahshua's) day and nothing has changed. You are of your father the devil! and the lusts of your father you will do! JESUS IS AN ISRAELITE! You have no home you vegabond Jews, sons of cain! Jn8:44,Acts19:13
JewsWant2KillJesus 1 month ago
Talk about strawman arguments. Yeah, if you don't ask an Englishman about his opinions on the royal family he must be for them! This guy is a joke.
DoggyHateFire 1 month ago
@DoggyHateFire nah his point was simply that some lies we don't choose to dispute as it suits our way of life. The nation celebrated the marriage of a couple because they were 'the royals' yet contrarily hold the belief in equality. The world is on the brink of fiscal collapse or maybe just another 'credit crunch' we haven't recovered from the previous, with record high unemployment and small business suffering yet they're going on tour.
230382hwa 3 weeks ago
@230382hwa you could even take our pride in our sense of equality while women still don't get equal pay. We accept a class system and find new excuses for prejudice and bigotry and we even quickly take offence to foreign arranged marriage while locally teenage girls date and marry grown men and are open to the same 'risks'. Even objecting to the hijab while we sexualize our women. In other words we can accept contradictions and outright lies to suit culture.
230382hwa 3 weeks ago
So Dawkins debated this guy....gave his presentation and then left?
DarkQuietWyattON 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
even though he had some good points, this guy was just trying to be a comedian
jmdesilu 4 months ago
he dosent attack mariage because marriage doesnt hold inquisitions, or put a plane in a building or blow up abortion clinics! this lie is pretty damn violent, homophobia, sexism and arrogance, it does good yet it also does bad, one or the other, marriage is humble compared to the institution of religion
1FreeThinker1 5 months ago
Funny guy, but I'm with Dawkins on this one
TheMarlinspike 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This rabbi is rubbish.
cineasta71 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Funny guy, but an idiot.
StAndAl0neCompl3x 6 months ago 4
Lawrence Krauss at 0:18, I love that guy!
ZachRose88 6 months ago
Misleading title. There's no actual debate here.
simonwedege 6 months ago
Good points with humor. Nice combination.
mrtruthforever 6 months ago
HA! I actually really like this guy, and I'm a Dawkins fan!
Allanlegarthnielsen 6 months ago
This guy is a joke... and a pretty effective and good one, he should go pursue a career in that field and leave profound talk for Profound smarter minds, like R. Dawkins.
DrErkencho 7 months ago
wait... WHERE THE FUCK IS RICHARD DAWKINS!?!!?? this is not a debate, there's no opposing side! you filthy lying piece of shit!!
Madman1234855 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so basically all he does is joke around and make his audience laugh, and then they applause...
MovieFusionist 7 months ago
Dawkins is a British Republican.
tyruk 7 months ago
fruitcake .... really ?????
eagle67111 8 months ago
fruitcake
eagle67111 8 months ago
Seriously??? What kind of "debate" doesn't have an opposition? Where is Richard Dawkins? This idiot is only interested in selling his books and getting some cheap laughs. If I were Jewish I'd be ashamed of this piece of shit.
kerryalanp 8 months ago 3
Rabbi Dawkins - you are brilliant.
VladislavGomulka 8 months ago 2
I'd like Dawkins to debate with a muslim scholar and then we'd watch how "right" he would be about anything...
geokonti 9 months ago
If only being funny was equivalent to being right. Boteach didn't make a single factual proposition during this trainwreck of a speech
TheCompositeCone 9 months ago
Jews want the whole world to stay attached to their collection of mythical novels
montezoma 10 months ago 3
10:00 yep, the elite that God made more perfect, live in castles and are overprivledged, and the ordinary folks don't -assuming u reject karma and reincarnation- which all these orthodox shits do..So where is theJustice in that MR. Rabbi Shm? Maybe you should study the qabbalah (Jewish Occultism) a bit, sometime, then you might have something resembling an argument to present..
TwoPointsUp 10 months ago
The Jews copied their "Genesis" story from the Babalonian account of "Genesis"- Fact, not Fiction, any of you dare to admit to that???? Or do u prefer to live in a fairy tale cosmograph?
TwoPointsUp 10 months ago 2
how is this a debate when dawkins isnt even there?
sundayraver 10 months ago 2
Dawkin hate religion I assume because such religions that he hates deosnt tolerate Gay people..Dont you think?
deva930 10 months ago
@deva930 Possibly, irrational intolerance is 1 aspect of religion that makes it lame
sundayraver 10 months ago
@CKridin4life WTF? Who says being kind is stupid? Stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death is right yeah?
attractivue 10 months ago
@CKridin4life I am not anti-semitic, I am even worse, I am anti-religion. It took you this long to figure this out......... you fucking idiot!
attractivue 10 months ago
what is this bullshit??
snookerjam 10 months ago 3
@CKridin4life Coz I know how to use my brain and not be a sheep.......... you fucking idiot!
attractivue 10 months ago
the queen is on dollar bills?
antipryzm 11 months ago
comic is not science
gutiux 11 months ago
empty rhetoric, circular defence and blind-alley debate. I could be a rabbii at oxford at this rate.
breaneainn 11 months ago
this is stupid,
timesizwierd 11 months ago 12
if his belief has as much substance as his arguments then god is a clown
belneddy 11 months ago
Rabi is an idiot, Penguins monogomous! Dawkins is prolly troubled by the idea of some people being higher than the other but he might not have said anything because it doesn't effect anything, Religion does. I could answer all these stupid questions by this idiot but I'm switching to something more meaningful!
attractivue 1 year ago
well he is kinda funny. even though he is a moron
ShaolinViolin 1 year ago 2
No one has seen truth either but there most certainly is a truth that is not relative to anything else. It is the word of Ha Shem.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
does he really attack anyone who writes a book and makes money from it as a point in his favor....and then plugs his own book?
Dethreid 1 year ago
This guy has such an IRRITATING voice!!!
clorofilazul 1 year ago 2
This jew cant debate so he goes on a comedy show tour. Im not impressed, i am not entertained. The jew loses, humanity wins. There is no god. move along kids
699backstab 1 year ago
im from uk. most of us could not give a damn about the royal family they are just a show, marriage is a human creation used to order society, most men like me would screw as many women as they could if they were 'allowed',
thatwilldonicely 1 year ago
All of his points about tradition and things not being true are just so pointless and have no relevance to anything
cassinator3000 1 year ago
how is this a debate when the other man is not present
Bearsir 1 year ago
Women feel ashamed in stating that they NEED a man.
But both parties need each other if they both stick to religious limits i.e. satisfying each other in ways sanctified by religion.
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
we can kinda see love through a mri...
brazilamaral 1 year ago
Jewish stand up comedy...bad
Doesn't mention how sex, family, marriage, etc, has caused adverse affects to the global population for over two thousand years the way religion has. Why bother attacking something fake that does no harm when you can attack something fake that has killed and tortured countless masses throughout time immemorial.
TheUltimate747 1 year ago
@TheUltimate747
/watch?v=PLKUsoNJFOk
farzanatasneem 1 year ago
This guy would rather be cute than right.
amerikanbeat 1 year ago 18
@amerikanbeat Yeah, if Mel Gibson were in the audience he'd need two six packs in order to laugh. But then he'd start up and get removed by security.
Mrdavid839 11 months ago
@amerikanbeat true but listen to the crowd laugh and chuckle. He's clearly a showman. Most con artists are.
jeffdustin 7 months ago
Monarchy isn't a belief system, Religion is. Monarchy isn't a personal choice, Religion is. Marriage is a personal choice that Mr. Dawkins made - that has no ill effect on others. Relgion does.
That said, the Rabbi is funny and intelligent - though wrong.
xxDrudgeryReportxx 1 year ago
This Rabbi insults Richard and then says 'he's a great friend'. Yeah Rabbi I bet you have lots of gay friends too.
hpholland 1 year ago 2
Thank G-d I am a Gay Jew....my BF is Jewish as well and we have sex atleast once a day.
kewlyid 1 year ago
what a moron
conillusionist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EVERY AGE HAS A DEVILS SUN . LIKE THE MEN THAT TELL PEOPLE TO TAKE POISON AND KILL YOUR SELF . AND YOU WILL GO TO PARADISE . AND WE PUT OUR FAITH IN A MAN . THAT CAN DIE JUST LIKE US . EVEN A FOOL CAN BE INTELLIGENT . WE ALL NO A CAR CAN NOT RUN WITH OUT A ENGINE . AND SOME ONE TO PUT THAT ENGINE TOGETHER , THE HUMAN BODY RUNS LIKE A ENGINE . SO WHO PUT OUR ENGINE TOGETHER ?
thinkalott33 1 year ago
weasel
religion must die
4zion4life 1 year ago
The Rabbi destroyed the schmuck nonprofessor scumbag dawkings.
saulboyjt 1 year ago
@saulboyjt did he? i think not.
nujivaa 1 year ago
@saulboyjt Did you pass grade 1 or what
hpholland 1 year ago
1 part profesor, 1 part rabbi and 1 part stand up comedian!
kingsammythecat 1 year ago
To the people who say this isn't a debate are wrong. This is the debate of the theist. Man stands at the front and tells you what to think in a witty and friendly manner whilst you sit and do what you're told.
I've not seen this all the way through but I presume he asks for cash at the end?
greedoniz 1 year ago
@greedoniz He didnt tell anyone what to think. Watch the video before you comment you wanker.
hefnicity 1 year ago
@hefnicity What an astute and clever rebuttal. A lesser poster would have just resorted to throwing insults
greedoniz 1 year ago
@greedoniz Not a rebutal dumbass. Just correcting a moron is all.
hefnicity 1 year ago
@hefnicity Ooh ok you are completely correct of course. I do apologise
by the way it is spelt rebuttal
greedoniz 1 year ago
@greedoniz By the way it's spelled spelled. And it's spelled apologize. You may apologize again when you learn how to spell it.
hefnicity 1 year ago
@hefnicity One can either use an 's' or a 'z' depending on whether you write in Uk english (the correct one 'S') or the version for simpletons (US) where the spellings have been altered to a more phonetic version to hide a lack of education.The same also applies to spelt.
I hope one has learnt something about the use of language from this dialogue we have shared and if you wish some links to the use and correct spelling of these words I will be happy to oblige
greedoniz 1 year ago
@greedoniz Actually spelt can be spelled either way in US english. I gathered you were from the UK from your first comment where you used the word "whilst". That was only reason I replied and the only reason I used the word "wanker". I just wanted to call someone a wanker. Isn't that a curse word in the UK? But seriously, he didn't tell anyone what to think. I believe that is Dawkins' job. And if Americans are simpletons. stop using our websites and technology. I'm sure they're beneath you.
hefnicity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hefnicity
Tommy Flowers
Tim Berners Lee
greedoniz 1 year ago
Seems this gentleman is a coward if he always wondered why Dawkins "singled out" religion in their debates but he never had the courage to bring it up until a situation where Dawkins couldn't offer a rebuttal.
melzaren 1 year ago
This is not a debate between 2 guys....wtf...
Nightmeare 1 year ago
Yeah, alot of fluff but no substance.
paolo27th 1 year ago
Theres nothing wrong with traditions, but what is the need for this fictional character we call god? By all means preserve the culture, but it is dangerous and unhealthy to believe in a fallacy and to take it as truth. The reason people don't do this is because once you take the God element out, the whole thing crashes down. But it is still a good thing to continue tradition for homage to your ancestors, BUT, don't let it be taken as fact and make rational decisions off of it.
username102793 1 year ago
he wishes he could win a debate and win over a crowd that wasn't wearing odd things on their head or ropes from their pants...
Leoorchange 1 year ago
Why does the lie of religion bother Mr. Dawkins while other "lies" such as the queen being on currency, which connotes that some people are superior to others, do not, asks Rabbit Shmuley. Well the answer, as many people have previously stated, is simple: religion, unlike the queen’s presence on currency, leads to, has lead to, and/or has been used to justify the following, which due to the sheer size is presented below:
JM11941 1 year ago
Genocide, Suicide Bombing, Wars (such as the Crusades), Auto-Da-Fe's, Pogroms, Inquisitions, Honor Rape, Honor Killings, Honor Rape, Slavery, Racism, Apartheid, Inequality, Sexism, the treating of Women as Slaves, Slowing Down The Progression of Science and Technological Development, Inequality for Members of the LGBT Community, Suicide, Depression .... I could go on but I think I have made my point.
JM11941 1 year ago
a true spin master
jesusgrc1762 1 year ago
this guy says that dawkins isn't bothered by other issues, but how does he know? that dawkins makes evolution, creationism and religion his quest, doesn't mean he is okay with everything else.
lusteraliaszero 1 year ago
Talks a lot, does't say much. Very lame.
rooflee 1 year ago
he made some true points, but he still can't prove god exists.
Takaja316 1 year ago
Marriage is a construct of religion... douche' that's why it's not natural...lol what an idiot
moqutpar 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
sweetlapaz 1 year ago
FUCK THIS JEW. He sounds like his balls have been squashed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
llHyRaXll 1 year ago
this is a great example of an articulate stupid person
unfortunately for creationists these types of people are the best they can offer
fandaal really hit the spot about the rabbi having great rhetoric and no content
the technique he uses is very similar to how politicians dodge questions and answer cryptic and thought provoking yet unfruitful answers
i totally agree with fandaal's logic
0altaer0 1 year ago
You cannot compare 'traditions' such as the Royal Family, marriage and monogamy to faith-based religion. Tradition and faith are completely separate issues.
Apart from that this guy should do stand-up with Jackie Mason. Plus he needs to get laid!!
CombatRocks 1 year ago
Comment removed
modo203 1 year ago
so was that a debate on evolution or a stand up comedy?
the rabbi missed the point.. with all those insipid pick up lines fetched off the internet..
it's pathetic..
I'm sorry Rabbi, but it takes more than cracking jokes and entertaining a baby boomers crowd to win a debate..
one vote against
modo203 1 year ago
Comment removed
modo203 1 year ago
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you our very own standup Rabbi...
f0b0m 1 year ago
Wow,Youtube is the a playground for disgruntled atheist.
simonbrogabee 1 year ago
SInce when did debate become a one man shitty stand up routine?
solitarydaz13 1 year ago
Monarchy, monogamy (marriage) have never made someone fly a plane into a building... wait, haven't they...? ;-)
bersa888 1 year ago
profesor dawkins just didnt happen , he studied for yrs n yrs to become a profesor ,
its not random its hard work
this beardy man talk crap
loly1969 1 year ago
lol Marraige is as useless as Religion? marraige is a way to ensure that most of the males and females get a chance to reproduce and do so more successfully and hence help each other in bringing up their offspirngs more effectively. What does religion do for the same purpose?Such a contract between 2 individuals increases the chances of successful reproduction and survival of the offsprings and their genetic material in futureFailboat
sushanalone 1 year ago
All this fucking Rabbi ever does is attack those who he debates with personally, never actually debates the matter at hand, cracking jokes, pointing out flaws in the opposition rather then their side of the debate.
What a fucking joke, he should keep to his flock of whom can listen to his garbage, not the logical thinking public.
Peace.
Tait011 1 year ago
this is shameful to Jews. What an asshat.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
He's funny. Seems like I would hang out with this guy, get a beer, watch the game and share laughs.
As soon as he started defending religion however, I would have to hop back over the fence and whoop his ass. In fact, the point that we could share an awesome expereince together in any other sense - and religion wasn't involved - proves religion worthless in any concrete sense. Our daily lives doesn't hinge at all on the "supernatural".
BrannonMcConkey 1 year ago
This Shmuley is sooo full of shit.
And the audience is even more ignorant...
dietermauer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
Thanks for the pre-warning, listening to Shmuley WAS bad news.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
All of those stuck up feminist women who didnt raise their hand. I wonder how they would feel if the man in their life died in an accident the next day. For someone they supposedly dont "need", they sure would cry a lot for them when they lose them in their life.
TheMedievalMan 1 year ago
fallacies, fallacies, fallacies
isakel 1 year ago
Great debate by the Rabbi.
sarevor 1 year ago
Crap. All crap. Wasn't able to refute anything Richard said. All fallacies.
gorfjorf2112 1 year ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
@gorfjorf2112 "Crap. All crap. Wasn't able to refute anything Richard said. All fallacies."
haha i imagined you screaming that at your computer with tears running down your face.
mas701 1 year ago
@gorfjorf2112 I'm agnostic but this guy is funny. This is not be taken seriously.
TemplarX2 1 year ago
@gorfjorf2112 We'll it's more of a comedy act, which is typical of people who know they are wrong.
Mrdavid839 11 months ago 2
Remember when people began killing in the name of marriage, all those millions of deaths, the crusades, the spanish inquisition and the torture, all the..... no wait, that was RELIGION.
Dakatt1 1 year ago
264 000 people have died in the name of Christianity...
141 000 000 people have died under atheistic dictators trying to instil atheistic communism... Open you eyes (look up to the skies and see)...
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns @aveyowyns I'm agnostic not athiest. The fact is killing in the name of athiesm is just as bad. What does it come down to? People with unfounded belief killing others because they don't share the same belief. Religion and athiesm are two sides of the same coin. I don't know where you got those kill counts from but you may aswell add them together for all it matters.
If you don't have an unfounded belief you can't kill because of it.
Dakatt1 1 year ago
Okay...
First you have to prove that said beliefs are unfounded AND THEN you have to prove that said people did, IN FACT, kill in the name of said beliefs...
Your agnosticism has nothing to do with this, nor was I implying that you were an atheist. Agnosticism is lazy religion, or atheism...
If you don't have a founded belief, aka if you are agnostic, then you can kill for anything!
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns Firstly I'm a man of science. If you think something is true then it's up to YOU to prove its validity. Untill you do it is by defenition unfounded. Secondly your argument was that athiests were worse than christians, why would that matter unless you thought I was an athiest? If you would have said monarchies had killed more people than religion I would have inferred you believed me to be a royalist.
Dakatt1 1 year ago
And if you think something is untrue then it is up to YOU to prove its invalidity! You are the one who made the claim that religious beliefs are unfounded.
NO! Unless I make the claim that you are WRONG to believe that certain beliefs are unfounded, then I don't have to prove anything. But, as I said, YOU made the claim that these beliefs are unfounded, so you must prove so.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
Because you made the claim that people of RELIGION were the ones responsible for most deaths... And I stated my antithesis, with proof...that the religious HARDLY come close to the number deaths compared to atheistic communism. I never EVER said that atheists were worst than Christians... You should know what happens when one ass-u-me's'
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns The death toll is completely irrelevant. Take a look at the NUMBER of religious atrocities compared to the number of communist (of which the atheist culpability is highly disputable) ones. It's extremely likely that, if the religious tyrants had the technology that Stalin had, they would have killed as many, if not more.
QuixoticTendencies 1 year ago
Oh just please, move along.
There is NO difference between what Stalin did, and the Catholics! The Christian religious wars was not about Christianity but politics. Chrisitan Europe went to the aid of the Jews when Muslems took over Jerusalem. Catholic Europe feared that it might lose it's power over the people if they changed their religion to Protestant. EUROPE used the arbitrary idea of civilized = Christian to better suit the slaughtering of other human beings...
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns Have you ever read The Brothers Karamazov?
QuixoticTendencies 1 year ago
@aveyowyns And how is agnostism lazy? If anything its the opposite. Where I keep testing the validity of things you've read a book and said "oh, right, that must be it".
if you can't be sure of the answer, why do choose to believe one way or the other?
Dakatt1 1 year ago
Agnostism is lazy because you cannot find the truth by saying that anything can be true, and then keep an endless tally of evidence for the existence of god, or the non existence of god. It is not how 'truthfinding' works, as we would notice with a scientific method. You have to take a stance: god does (or does not) exist as your foundation for finding truth. And if there is not enough evidence, or the evidence you find does not suffice, THAN you create a new stance.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns "And if there is not enough evidence, or the evidence you find does not suffice, THAN you create a new stance. "
And thats where we differ, from lack of evidence I don't just make stuff up
Dakatt1 1 year ago
Shmuley LOL
fleischpudding 1 year ago
(cont'd)
"Shmuel Boteach was a rabbi who moved from America to the city of Oxford, where he lived for 11 years. He never had any official status in the University of Oxford. He arrived and bought a house. As anybody is free to do, he ran a club, which Oxford students were free to join." [2]
But why let truths stand in the way of harmless self-spin...
RationalThinker1859 1 year ago
Schmuley was never 'A Rabbi at Oxford', as he repeatedly claims.
"The L'Chaim Society was a student society at Oxford University from 1991 to 2001, under the leadership of the original Chabad Lubavitch American Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. At its onset, the society formed part of the Chabad movement, but evolved to become an inter-faith group.[1] However, Boteach was not in any official position at Oxford University. Richard Dawkins revealed, (cont'd')
RationalThinker1859 1 year ago
Monogamy is also almost always the preferred system for women, and that IS an adaptive tendency. Monogamy will only be reinforced as women are more empowered.
jodiebug1 1 year ago
It's also a canard to say that monogamy isn't "true." Our species' history is probably polygynous, but plenty of cultures encourage monogamy because it's very stable, and many people prefer it because they are devoted. We have conflicting impulses, and people are often torn between extra-marital attractions and the companionate love they share with their spouses while still endorsing monogamy.
jodiebug1 1 year ago
This is rubbish. Dawkins most certainly does "believe" in love. Understanding the physical basis of our feelings does not mean they are delusions. They are real, and that is how the biochemical processes manifest themselves. Dawkins is in love with his wife and believes in monogamy presumably because he respects women and it is fair to both partners.
jodiebug1 1 year ago
Rabbi Shmuley is an IDIOT. He is obviously catering to a comic audience, and there is no real argument against Dawkins. Don't forget that Shuley is a rabbi and believes in stupid Jewish religious trash.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
good job! you managed to say nothing off any importance or relevance in the first 5 minutes of your speech (more of a comedy routine than a speech).
I gave up
anm898989 1 year ago
i bet he cant talk face-2-face with Dawkins
naayvaayan 1 year ago
This man debated Dawkins at St. Catherines College, Oxford 1996 the voting in the end was clear...Dawkins was completly trashed. Later, Dawkins famous selective memory kicked in and denied this debate existed, he claimed mr. Boteach was just a chairman, the video was released and Dawkins was caught lying.
GodHatesPortugal 1 year ago
Comparing the nature of the "royal family," which is a terribly SMALL portion of the population, to the nature of believing in souls, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts... which compromises a HUGE portion of the US population. Dawkin's problem with religious mentalities is not based on the DAILY ROUTINE actions that religious believers and regular church-goers perform. His problem is first, with the young labeling of "Christian children," and second, with creationist's DEFIANCE of science.
capoman1 1 year ago
Hey , it's the catskills!!!
gigwalnutz1 1 year ago
I wouldn't know the exact words of Dawkins, but I would surmise his response to this question as marriage, love, etc. are not challenged so directly because they aren't so destructive to society. You don't see people blowing themselves and others in the name of marriage. (Granted there are deaths caused in the name of "love" but not near on the scale as those that could be attributed to religion)
Also, you don't see the scientific community being restricted on the basis of marriage or love.
StarMaster3dfx 1 year ago
What a coward. Waits till Dawkins leaves then starts trying to mock him with his lame standup "shtick".
godbegone 1 year ago
antjam666 is a complete fuckhead socialist fucktard
nakedBison69 1 year ago
This was not a debate between Dawkins and this guy. They were merely speakers and the same event and were not even right next to each other in the program. This guy is trying to boost himself and seem more important by phrasing it this way.
ArchNME 1 year ago 28
@ArchNME Yeah, this guy is a grade A cunt in my book.
rooflee 1 year ago
Shmuley is equivocating with the word 'belief'. To believe in God is a scientific propostion in that God has its own objective reality independant of humans. Like the sun, or the moon, or Mount Everest, God either exists or doesn't. This is an objective proposition.
Whereas to 'believe' in love or marriage is a completely different type of belief - it is a subjective preference, an aesthetic, a personal choice. It's not really a belief at all. It's more like 'approval'.
MegaLotusEater 1 year ago
@MegaLotusEater, if you get married through the church, you believe in loving your partner in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, all of these things which you agree to when you get married- you should have a belief in them- ultimately you should have a belief in true love and the unity of a husband and wife. You should have a belief that infidelity is wrong and you are to remain with your partner. Those who don't believe in it should not get married, yet they do
bazzymushpea123 1 year ago
@bazzymushpea123 : Yes, I do appreciate the significance of marriage to many people, but you are still equivocating with the word 'belief'. To believe in, say, gravity is one thing, but to believe that, say, life is worth living, or in the wonder of nature, or in the preciousness of marriage, is something quite different. The latter 'beliefs' are aesthetic preferences - matters of opinion. They are not scientific or objective truths that can be discerned through empirical means.
MegaLotusEater 1 year ago
@bazzymushpea123. The belief in god should fall in the former category i.e. an objective as opposed to subjective truth. God either exists or he does not. It is a scientific question in the sense that there is one and only one answer.
In contrast, the belief in the importance of marriage is a subjective view. It is not an objective or scientific truth. Some people consider it superfluous. Some consider it sacred. I'm not disparaging marriage, by the way. I'm just highlighting the distinction
MegaLotusEater 1 year ago
Everyone knows the royal family is a bunch of figure heads, and no one is blowing buses up because somebody says something bad about the royal family.
slicingwater 1 year ago
Actually funny! Yes, of course marriages are bullshit and it is one of those lies that society as a whole is too stupid to take cognizance of, but many have pointed it out in the past from Oscar Wilde to Shaw etc.... Dawkins simply does not deal with marriage, but with another lie, that is, religions. Marriages are out of his scope, and that is all. He is a great mind otherwise, and again if society were more intelligent he would have a much easier task ahead.
FlameBlazers 1 year ago
flameBlazers believes in the lie of socialism
nakedBison69 1 year ago
theNWOsyko 1 year ago
@theNWOsyko holy fucking insane!!!!!!!!!!!
bipolarbearhug 1 year ago
this guy is funny
majorl31 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you say there is no creator ,things happened all by themselves,we have no God you say,well then complex design had no designer is like saying your computer had no builder no designer,do you even have clue as to how absurd that sounds,I left the house and came home and the pizza was done and ready to eat nobody did it but its great pizza
majorl31 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you say there is no creator ,things happened all by themselves,we have no God you say,well then complex design had no designer is like saying your computer had no builder no designer,do you even have clue as to how absurd that sounds,I left the house and came home and the pizza was done and ready to eat nobody did it but its great pizza
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools
majorl31 1 year ago
lol the royal family argument is 100% strawman. he's acting as though dawkins is defending the royal family because he uses the british pound? yeah i don't need to watch the rest of this video.
chaseantarctica 1 year ago 2
This Rabbi's argument against Dawkins is silly. Dawkins has never said the royal family makes sense. Dawkins also doesn't care whether people beleive in religion...he just think it doesn't make any sense. Dawkins is a realist. This Rabbi's argument could have been easily been refuted if Dawkins was hear. He is not as brilliant as he tries to be. He has good aspirations though.
Flipper79able 1 year ago
what a stupid jewish RABI ,,, he is anoiyng ,,, and all he can do is a bunch of noise ,,,
he needs to organise more h is ideas...
heltonkuhn1 1 year ago
This Jewish guy is deluded.
jbarks10 1 year ago
this video is an excellent example of great retorical skill and zero content.
marriage is a lie, omg. true and false are aplicable to statements, not phenomena.
fandaal 2 years ago 22
@fandaal You seem to have a very short attention span. The entire point of his 9 minute discussion is that Richard Dawkins chooses specifically, consciously to attack religion and his reasoning for it conflicts with so many more issues that are present even in his own life.
ITTutorCanada 1 year ago
@ITTutorCanada His main argument is that, though religion is a lie and a myth, there are many other useful lies and mths. And this is true of course,
But than we should treat religion apropriately, as a socially convenient myth, that is sometimes useful.
It would be very unwise to organize our life according to a myth.
fandaal 1 year ago
@fandaal It was funny that's all I care about
Nick153452 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Believing in a higher being is the belief in seperation from all that exists. Hierarchies are based on seperation. The beings that created these hierarchies are the same ones that control this world today.
apetrowsky1 2 years ago
Anyway you should watch the debate between Rabbi Mizrachi and the Christian missionary. search it, its available of youtube also.
extazy17 2 years ago
This is a wonderful comedy routine, but it isn't a debate, and it certainly isn't an honest attack on Dawkins.
One is certainly tempted to enquire into the style of debate, which is disengenious. ie no direct attack on the stance Dawkins has actually taken, but and enquiry into the topics Dawkins has taken no stance.
Furthermore, he fails to distinguish between sex with another person, and the regular sort of sex.
gamesbok 2 years ago
Monogamy isn't a lie, but it exists for good Darwinian reasons.
Prof Lovelace, at Chicago in the 1970's explains this well, and well documented in Ch 16 in Don Johansons book, 'Lucy'.
gamesbok 2 years ago
a type of wood. lol.
britmicro 2 years ago
I somewhat agree that we should follow reason and evidence. That is why people should follow Judaism (or at least the 7 universal laws of Noah). "Judaism" which is really the Torah is based on scientific evidence. Check on youtube- "Rabbi Mizrachi Torah and Science , or Divineinformation". please comment back AFTER watching it.
extazy17 2 years ago
Arhur Miller said that Judaism, in all practical manifastations, isn't based on the Torah so much as the Talmud.
gamesbok 2 years ago