@CRoadwarrior as i asked before what is your opinion on uncondistional predestaination as calvin type preachers believe . ps how are your studies going .......
zakabog. Actually, the video did have a point which you apparently missed. My example of Ps. 14:1 is a simple and clear example of just WHY taking something out of context produces nonsense, and WHY it is important to take context into consideration for proper understanding of ANY literature. If you don't get that you won't get anything.
zakabog. My argument from context stands and simply points out that if you rip a passage out of context, you can make up practically any nonsense you want, and say the opposite of what the passage IN context actually said. In the series I do refute the claims of Dawkins. If you missed it, hit rewind.
LOL. Sarcasim will get you nowhere except perhaps the block zone, yellowporpoise. I never claimed to have "THE" ultimate interpretation and that I am the "only" man who does not take any verse out of context. There are many good Bible colleges and schools teaching sound hermeneutical skills all over the country. And people like Dawkins could benefit from them.
Beowulf...What the heck are you talking about? And if I had a dime for every lame comment about ratings, I'd be rich. If you can't make comments of substance, don't comment at all. Ratings don't prove squat, except that some are preoccupied with inconsequential things.
You miss the point. They are meaningless but some people try to use them as if they were some accurate measure of the quality of a video. There is a reason YT allows you to put the ratings on or off. I elect to have them off so that the CONTENT of a video can be the focus. The rating system is flawed anyway, as I have noticed that anyone with several computers and different IP addresses can vote more than once, AND there is the issue of 2 people voting while 2,000 watched. You figure it out
no wonder the comments are disabled i have noticed that almost every every pro christian channel on you tube i see that the comment ratings are disabled. just like their god they dont take critique very well.
In the 20 minutes of parts 1 and 2 you made NO points against Dawkins claims. You've only made a string of "arguements" based on logical fallicies. Not much of a smackdown.
TBucker. Actually, I did make points against Dawkins' claims. If you missed them that's your problem. I started with general points against what he does (take passages out of context) and then moved on in the series to get to specific points. So, I suggest you pay closer attention and perhaps you will learn a thing or two if your bias for Dawkins does not hinder your ability to think.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit listening to you. You are the type of person that would believe anything that you see or read,,,,as long as it agrees with what YOU think,,,,,open your eyes
bonkers73. LOL...I think you need to look in the mirror, because you false claims about me probably apply to you more than me. I actually TEST what I see and read as prescribed in the Bible (1 John 4:1). My eyes ARE open. The question is...are YOURS?
CRoadwarrior "to argue that the Bible yields "at best" no evidence at all, and so forth, shows a level of either ignorance or blatant disregard for facts."
Kungfuish "So enlighten me, us"
Remove my (our) ignorance. Educate us on these facts you claim to have.
No, Kungfuish, he is not producing valid alternative ideas that hold more "merit" in logic than the veracity of the Bible. Logic demands that he investigate the veracity of the Bible and then come to a reasoned conclusion, not merely claim there is no veracity to the Bible or that its veracity is "dubious." This is no "game." The truth is not a game, but I notice that atheists have a way of playing the rationalization game to get away from the truth.
The rationalization game as you call it is hardly exclusive to atheists.
How very pretensious of you to dictate what is logical. In every corner of investigation of the bible yields at best no evidence at all, save for mentions of historical places included and begs for blindness to acheive standing. That is hardly "veracitous", and gives ANY assessment of its contents fair consideration.
Kungfuish. Ah yes, the Tu Quoque fallacy mixed with a little straw man. I never claimed that rationalizing is exclusive to atheists, but when it comes to the Bible and Christianity, they are the kings and queens of it. It is not "pretentious" to know logic from study and know when others are being illogical. LOL. And to argue that the Bible yields "at best" no evidence at all, and so forth, shows a level of either ignorance or blatant disregard for facts.
LOL...Your assumptions make you look foolish. Not in my "mom's" basement. Mom is 3,000 miles away. Now that's funny. Turned off the facts? Well that explains why you so blindly follow the foolishness of people like Dawkins. Reason and logic? LOLOL. You have neither.
ok...so your not in your moms basement...im not sure why you go on the attack after that.....i have no reason or logic? dude, thats just an insult. typical christian
bradreed...Stating a fact is not an insult. You can't claim to have "reason and logic" but dismiss them when confronted with the truths of Christianity.
If you're seriously interested in finding the truth, you need to study/watch/read Pastor Ray Hagin. He lived/preached the lie your living for 20 years until he stumbled on the truth in a book about Egypt. The truth is not in you bible...it's in Kemet. The white man cannot enslave your body, why do you let him enslave your mind? Egypt has a much richer historical record than anything that was plagiarized and put in the bible. Do your own research!
vetteluvnh. No, the "truth" does not come out of Kemet and especially out of "pastor" Hagin. I do my research. Apparently Hagin doesn't. He is a joke to me.
I understand that you've accepted "apologetics" over "evidence". I'm traveling to Kemet (Egypt) w/Pastor Hagin this October to VIEW the evidence for myself. These armchair debates are worthless. Like pastor Hagin says "No evidence, no argument. Go to the source and invalidate me." The bible is not evidence. It was "assembled" at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. under Roman Emperor Constantine. You have alot of faith in a politically motivated roman emperor to give you gods word.
vetteluvnh...LOL. You are the victim of rumor and hearsay. The Bible was NOT "assembled" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. You do not have accurate knowledge about the Council, and I suggest you do some research from credible sources to find out. I recommend F.F. Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture."
My friend you need to watch/study Pastor Ray Hagins. You talk about context, research, and veracity but you have no clue. The truth is in Kemet and was there thousands of years before it was stolen by greeks and romans. If the white man nolonger enslaves your body, why do you let him enslave your mind?
vetteluvnh...I do not need to watch/study a man. I follow Jesus mainly, along with His Scriptures. I talk about context, research and veracity because I have spent a great deal of time developing my understanding of the Bible. After listening to just a short clip of "pastor" Ray, I can say this without fear of credible contradiction that he needs a) the Spirit b) a good Biblical education. The Bible is not about any "white man," as it was produced in the East. I do have a clue. You don't.
LOL..."pastor" Ray Hagins doesn't know the basics. In a video of his, he claims there's a contradiction between the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. He has no clue and lacks any level of scholarship.
so which sect of christianity miss quotes the bible? and which has the right version of the good book? i used to be catholic and i know that they interpret the sacrement of bread and wine to literaly mean body and blood of christ while other sects feel that it is a symbolic offering. are all sects of christianity correct or is there only one true interpretation of the bible. as for the part of the bible being a historical document yes i feel that it is but not in the way that most do...
you have made no credible argument. i'm very open to both sides of this debate and choose the atheist side. but you have honestly tested my patience. it would be more appreciable if you provided more examples maybe, such as the various stoning condoned by god, the mass killings of unbelievers, etc. in no way am i tryin to say i have this figured out and im absolute in my opinion, but it seems to me when i read these passages its clear cut that god endorsed these actions which seems immoral.
hawksairbrush...Your mere claim that I have made no credible argument proves nothing. Do you even know what a "credible" argument looks like? I do. I make the clear point that Dawkins takes Scripture out of context, and doing so is wrong and leads to false understandings. What you think is "clear cut" and "immoral" is not so if you take context into proper consideration.
(see beginning of this comment on part 1)...So i continue to part 2 and here we go again, first 3 minutes wasted on absolutely nothing. Then the rest of the video you argue that since you can take psalm 14 out of contexts there for Dawkins is also taking the bible out of contexts, instead of actually refuting hes actual argument. This is called a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT! Very common with creationists.
I wont bother with part 3.
And btw, can you explain to me why are the ratings disabled?
JR...I think you need to take a good look in a logic text or two. What I did was give an EXAMPLE of how taking Scripture out of context can lead to nonsense, just as with what Dawkins does. That is not a straw man.
Give one specific, checkable example of each person you mention how "theists take people like Gould, Harris, dawkins, Darwin, Einstein" out of context.
You are asserting that Dawkins is distorting the bible and taking it out of context, yet you fail to give any examples of how he does this.
You've spent 20 minutes talking and haven't made any valid points regarding how Dawkins has actually taken scripture quotations out of context. You really need to get to the point.
My point is not to say that atheists are so much better at getting their facts right, but that theists fail in the same manner just as often if not more.
While many atheists might take some parts of the bible out of context there are many theists who take the same missquotes incontext to their own beliefs.
Imaginary...It is a fallacy to argue "You too." You don't get anywhere by arguing this way. Whenever anyone takes anyone out of context, it is wrong. And people like Dawkins don't get a pass just because they are supposed to be educated atheists. Atheists are not so much better at getting their facts right, as Alister McGrath has proven the many errors of Dawkins. I have seen a few in his latest book myself. So no, they are not "much better," especially when it comes to the Bible.
Do you not think it's possible that YOU are missquoting, miss representing, or taking out of context what Dawkins is presenting? Or how about the Bible? It's a fallacy to argue that it's a one sided coin here and that's what I'm presenting.
Good grief. I wish you guys could pay attention to detail. I never said he didn't write it. I said "probably." Do you know what the world "probably" means?? I strike fear in the hearts of atheists who have half a brain and have been refuted by me and know the truth. Obviously, you either don't have half a brain or you haven't experienced the warrior slapdown. LOL. SuperAtheistBoy...LOOL You're nowhere near "super."
I'm not of any particular faith. I found his documentary was fairly harsh with how he attacked other peoples' faiths, but I also found that what other people said was questionable, and perhaps even worrying. Of course, the great majority of religious people are not like the extreme examples shown in the video, but taking scriptures out of context, or outright distorting them, surely the guy who thought murder was justified was doing this. I think the video at least raised a few points.
Froggity...People often distort the facts so that their position can seem more plausible. That is why they must distort the Bible and Christian theology. But what are you referring to regarding justifying "murder"?
Frog, I didn't see that he "attacked" any particular faith. He posed questions of logic and reasoning. The global culture we live in often treats the questioning of faith as taboo.
Religion claims the bible isn't to be taken literally, but if questions it, they are accused of "distorting". How can one distort something that isn't substantial enough by its own followers to be literal?
Dear CRoadwarrior, I just spent 9 minutes and 49 seconds waiting for you to give an example of a "bible distortion" by Richard Dawkins... I didn't hear any...
denzilla...You might want to hold that assertion until AFTER you have seen the whole series I completed so far. More are coming. But I did refute some of his irrational arguments.
gneisenau321...I'm not sure about that. But I think some older YT users have this ability, and you can do longer vids by "live" upload. But for the most part, today you can only upload a video that is 100 mb or less and about 10-11 min each.
Another 10 minutes, but alas, all you've done in this video is question Dawkin's assertion that the bible is dubious of origin. Well actually, you argue against the notion that the bible itself is dubious, as opposed to its origin, but either way, why not take a stab at his actual arguments rather than nitpick like this?
Hopefully there are some actual refutations in your third video.
In this regard, the Bible was a VERY Scientific book... About 2000 years ago. It contains plenty of tidbits about the world we live in, that today we have proven to be factual information. It differs from Science in that when one of these theories is proven incorrect instead, it's still sort've lingers around. Because the Bible is "The Word of God", then the SCIENCE must be wrong!
The God hypothesis was perfectly valid 2000 years ago, but today, in light of evidence, it simply falls short.
Actually, the opposite is true. The more we learn about the world from science (especially biology) the more we find that a Creator seems more reasonable. Anthony Flew, former avid atheist, NOW has changed his mind, not due to a "born again" experience or "conversion," but due to the SCIENCE of modern genetics and other evidence for a Creator and Designer of the universe. So no, it far from falls short. It is growing as the real evidence mounts.
Why is it that any time Science indicates the tiniest little find for the Bible it ultimately proves GOD exists? But when findings in favour of Evolution surface (As they often do.) Christians are still skeptical because we don't have every single link between every species ever? It's like how Dawkins said, about every time a slot in a species' fossil record is filled, in the eyes of the Creationist it just "Creates two more gaps on either side of it."
Blackstar, you do oversimplify the issue. This is not about "tiny" little finds, and is not about what "proves" God. We are talking about the veracity of the Bible here. Findings in favor of evolution are colored by an evolutionary bias inherent in the "system." It's been documented that a part of a dolphin rib was mistaken for a missing link "hominid" bone. Why? A desire to "find" evolution, even when it doesn't exist. There was Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, and others.
Yes, because Evolutionists are apparently the only ones subject to a confirmation bias. Plenty of finds have been proven to be hoaxes or just something else altogether, but they're dwarved by the vast amount of evidence we have for evolution. And perhaps it's just a matter of opinion, but I would consider some good parameters for boat design, or the fact that the Earth floats in space as little more than "Small scientific insight." (By today's standards)
"Vast amounts of evidence" we have for evolution? LOL. Now that's funny. What we really have is vast amounts of speculation around the evidence in nature that could just as easily be explained by a Creator who made similar creatures with similar structures (e.g., homology). So please, you are not going to get anywhere with those kind of assertions. I suggest you read Dr. Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution.
And we have "Plenty of documentation that anyone who questions the Bible is ignorant?" Whenever evidence appears that contradicts your beliefs (As I know happens pretty frequently) the other person "Must not have done very much research", unfortunately there's plenty of evidence FOR the veracity of the Bible AND against it. If your argument is strictly for the "Veracity of the Bible" like I said, it has plenty of fun facts in it. If you bleed someone, they'll die. Hittites are real. etc.
And ultimately, logic dictates that if we have two contradictory claims (the Bible is historical/the Bible is not historical) then someone must be WRONG. Too many people don't have discernment skills to tell who's right or who's wrong, so that the so-called evidence "against it" can be seen for what it is. So the "AND against it" is no real argument. It's a superficial attempt to justify those who are lazy and just take sides based on their bias and not a careful examination of the facts.
Yet again, you don't really quote Dawkins' "Distortion of the Bible" you just site an example of how someone MIGHT.
And yes, the Bible has very questionable origins, there's not really much of an argument there, given that 2/3rds of the world aren't Christians. Just because you can prove the existence of Hittite or even of Jesus, doesn't that automatically proves they were magical. The Bible holds numerous, small insights into Science and ancient culture... But... Not much else.
"Science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil"
"your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but...it looks like a petrol engine."
"If you have a faith, it is...evidence."
"Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not...with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have...spurious effects. ...the apparent effect might have happened by chance alone."
Yeah, Emerging...taking things out of context can be fun...lol...when you're doing it back to an atheist who regularly does the same to the Bible. Ohhh what a rushhhh!
...so, don't let your assumptions get you into big trouble. People with greater education than you or I have taken Dawkins to task on several points, and what I present here is only a small sample of what's out there.
You seem like a nice enough person, but very misguided... and slightly offensive if you weren't so funny spewing hypocrisy and (sorry!) ignorance. I feel as though I should warn you that eventually you'll probably going to look at these videos in the future and go "Man, what was I thinking? I should've done more credible research myself, and not display the perfect text book of a brainwashed Christian."
What's really so funny, Endless, is the fact that while I am busy refuting nonsense from Dawkins and clear errors others of scholarship have revealed, all people like yourself can do is try to criticize me. The ignorance is not on my part. It is yours. I've done my homework, and the fact that you think I haven't shows just how much YOU have not done yours.
Dear, I hate to tell you, but you didn't debunk anything. You just stroked your ego for about ten minutes. It was cute and all, but it wasn't productive one bit. What are your qualifications anyway? What school did you go do? How long did you study? I apologize if you covered all of this VERY important information in another video, but I'm not about to search 40 videos just to hear all you did was graduate high school.
Well, Endless, you can claim all day that I didn't debunk anything, but this only shows how little you know of debunking. Stroked my ego for ten minutes? Now that is a gross distortion of reality if I ever saw one. Just admit that you are a Dawkins fan, and no matter what silly claim he makes, he's right. My qualifications? I have two earned degrees and I'm working on a third. I am a theology major but I also study science, history, linguistics and so forth...
Once again, a video full of nothing but nonsense. And you didn't even address any of Dawkins' claim in this video. And Bible stories such as the Genesis creation and the supposed worldwide flood are 2 major examples of the Bible being extremely historically inaccurate. But keep making videos though! There's no better way of denigrating a cause than by using bad arguments to support it.
Ok, GuyaRicanMC, this is your second false and dishonest claim about my vids. To the block zone...You wouldn't know a good argument vs. a bad one if it slapped you in the face, broke your jaw, and laid you up in the hospital for 40 days and 40 nights.
OK, once again I'm going to ask you to back up your claims with evidence. Do you have ANY PROOF that Dawkins used a ghost writer?
What SPECIFICALLY are the errors of fact in his book.
Lastly you have to be a sociopath to think that millions of children deserved to drown in your Bible fantasy known as "The Flood". Children who were not even old enough to conceive of a vengeful God much less repent for their "sins".
This is called "moron theology" it's not intelligent or moral.
manyhue, first of all, please note that I said he PROBABLY has one. It's a common thing in the publishing industry. I suggest you look that up if you don't know that. Second, I believe I laid the specific errors in prior texting. Now I've just relocated so all my books and things are unorganized, so I can't give you specifics right away. But I can provide them. Sociopath? No. Just someone who gets the theological point that a Creator holy God has the right to judge His creation...
lozcast, actually if you notice, under the "Tags" section to your right the word "comedy" does appear. However, this is far from simple comedy. All my claims about Dawkins are true. Dawkins has not done his homework on the theological issues. These vids are not about his book but the video series he did based on his book. And please explain how you know the state of my mind regarding how "open" it is. Perhaps you should look at the plank in your own eye first?
being the kind of person I am, I am interested in what your underlying motives are for posting your videos. I dont presume to know them but to me, the videos are meant to elicit a response. I am interested in understanding first before I make conclusions on things.
7othestars, my motives are simple. They are a means to an end. They are a way to help people see the Light and disperse the darkness promoted by the likes of Dawkins. As for response, I am not all that concerned about responses. I do what I do regardless of responses, but I don't make videos to get or elicit any particular response.
Celticking36, no, thank Dawkins for making unfounded and unsupported claims making it necessary to make videos debunking the madness of atheism. Burn your Bible if you will, but I'd burn Dawkins' books first while you're at it. LOL
And your reasons would be for what?Contradictions?Being too absurd?Being morally corrupt?Or maybe we are actually speaking of the bible.You make no sense as a usual theist.Please explain your point otherwise it is nonsense. :)
My reasons for what? Burning Dawkins' books? Because he distorts, misrepresents, and even lies (or makes grave errors) when it comes to theological issues. And his whole attitude towards his fellow humans who are theists is simply outlandish and an overreaction. Even some of his fellow atheists have criticized his antaganistic attitude. So there you have it...
CRoadwarrior, you seem like a fairly intelligent, well spoken person, but i feel as if you are a bit ignorant as to what the bible "teaches", as are most christians. For example.. you do know it supports slavery, right? And that while you said it tells you to "question things", it at the same time tells you you are to be stoned to death and sent to hell for doing just that?
Yes, cheeseclo, the warrior has some intellect, and some intellectual muscle too. That's why he slaps around stupidity from unbelievers so easily. But you make a grave mistake if you think the warrior is by any means "ignorant" about the Bible. I've been studying it almost longer than you've been alive on earth (if you posted your true age). I've been a Christian longer than you've been alive. So I've done some studying to know what I'm talking about...
...and no, I do not know that the Bible "supports" slavery. That is a popular myth that I will be debunking in a forthcoming series. And as for your last comment, it is not Biblical to say that you are to be stoned to death and sent to hell for questioning things. Not so. If you are going to argue that, then prove it by quoting chapter and verse.
You have no evidence to prove that Dawkins used a ghost writer. Stop your slander and speak to specific examples. Was it immoral for God to destroy all of the animals on the planet during the "Great Flood" when he killed everyone including innocent children?
manyhue, actually, as a writer and a publisher myself, I think I am somewhat qualified to know something about the publishing industry. People like Dawkins do not constantly churn out books without ghostwriters. Dawkins has either made grave errors in his own research, or he has a ghost writer that he does not fact-check behind. It's a documented fact that Dawkins has made many errors in his books. So you choose. Ghostwriter or Dawkins himself made the errors...
And also, manyhue, there is no slander here. I spoke from knowledge and facts. Was it immoral for God to judge a world for sin, a world He created? No. And it was not "all the animals" because some were spared. Remember the Ark? LOL. Innocent children? Hmm...someone hasn't taken theology 101.
CroadWarrior. I'm going to have to stop watching your videos for now. It took you two videos to make one point about the Hemienities (spelling I'm sure is wrong). Seriously . . . get to the point.
Heyyy...HonestDiscussioner...you can stop watching all you like. Facts and real truth are more important than your concern for time. I won't become just another boring YouTuber just to please some folks who can't appreciate what I'm trying to do. Tell Dawkins to get to the facts, and I won't have to MAKE a point.
HonestDiscussioner, well, I may not have gotten to the facts when YOU wanted me to, or the ones YOU wanted to hear, but that does not mean I did not present facts. As I have pointed out, pay attention to the fact that this is a series, which means what is not covered in one vid will be covered in another. You can't put all the facts in one 10 min. video, especially when there's so much nonsense from Dawkins to cover.
it seems that you have only 2 words to talk about - 'dubious' and 'voracity', yet it takes you 20 mins to barely cover your side of the argument.
Dawkins is not referring to the Hittites as accuracy - he is referring to the way (and time scales of when) it was written.
The New Testament is actually written from mainly hearsay (at least 30 years after the death of Jesus more like 100),so Dawkins is correct in saying accuracy is dubious. Anyone would say the same in a court of law.
Quickness is irrelevant. Facts are. How I present evidence in my videos is my business. You don't like, go watch some boring atheist spew unsupported claims. Deal with the facts and stop quibbling over time...or stop commenting on my videos.
Quickness is relevant if you want people to watch your videos. Two minutes in and you had said nothing of any substance - I was interested in the subject but you lost me. You are not funny. You are not intelligent. You clearly didn't plan or script this video.
your views come purely from your title. i think u are smart enough to understand your video doesnt do much but provide one point that i never heard dawkins make about "there is no god"
Actually, my view does a great deal. It makes the point that people like Dawkins have no business, without proper study, making claims about the Bible. And you need to pay attention. I never claimed Dawkins made a point about "there is no god." That was an example of how dangerous and wrong it is to take Scripture out of context to "prove" something.
Wow, that was almost as boring as it is useless. You managed to fill 10 minutes without saying a thing. For someone who attacks "atheists" (I love your broad generalisations)on their facts, you managed not to mention a single fact Dawkins gets wrong, in a video called "Refuting DAWKINS". Oh, and the weird voices REALLY aren't working in your favour.
therecordkeeper, I suggest you pay attention to the fact that this is a SERIES, and what isn't covered in one video will be covered in the others...stay tuned and perhaps learn something. Your unsupported opinion about my not saying "a thing," is nice, but it proves your bias, not my lack of substance. And I can use any voice I want...my videos...you don't have to watch.
I was very clear in what I said: when you spend ten minutes without a single sound argumentative sentence, that's enough for anyone to say that you haven't said a thing. And I have "supported" my opinion by pointing out that you haven't provided any evidence (even when supposedly, your main grief with Dawkins is that he hasn't). All you have done is state random conjectures (ghost writer, etc.) and claims (Dawkins has misread the bible etc.) without so much as an example.
Voracity is a "big" word for Dawkins? Which chair at Oxford do you hold? Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. You are a nit...
I'm still waiting for you to refute Dawkins work...
Heyyy....chyrd...buy a dictionary and learn how to spell veracity. I could care less if he held up a chair in the air for 5 years singing "I will survive." The man still doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to religion and theological matters and should stick with biology. Stay tuned...and you will see him refuted left and right, up and down, and all around, and when I'm done he'll look like an atheistic clown...LOL. The series is far from over...
Oops... I guess you got me because I typed voracity instead of veracity. Duh her duh her duh her. Chalk another victory up to the roadwarrior. I've heard about enough from you so I won't be hanging around while you willfully profess your ignorance in such an infantile way.
mediusnacht...lol...you have not faced the warrior in battle or seen him in action. Try it, and the fear will roll down your spine like a mighty flowing river. The theatrics and ego-stroking aren't what cause the fear...it's the facts that are irrefutable...they bring the fear. So stay tuned...
mediusnacht, well, some folks have a life and do not live on the Net. Regardless, perhaps try rendering a substantive response to the facts presented instead of unsubstantiated claims.
I like the double standard. You respond to me with comments about fear running down my spine, then accuse me of not rendering a substantive response. Meanwhile, your idea of a substantive response seems to be things like "God has already proven Himself. Try opening your eyes." or "Remember the Ark? LOL. Innocent children? Hmm...someone hasn't taken theology 101."
Actually, if you knew the issues, you'd understand that they are substantive points in summary form, as we are limited in characters here. The fear running down your spine comments are only jest, so lighten up. The warrior is going to bed.
stpuglo, you have no clue what you're talking about. I am NOT dealing with the book. It's about the v-i-d-e-o. I happen to mention his book at times, but my vids focus on the video. Got it? Good. As for homework, I am in the process of reading his inane rubbish right now. So please, check your assumptions at the Internet portal. LOL.
this guy is a joke, You happen to be a christian because u were born in the west, had u been born in the middle east you'd be a muslim, and i imagine you'd be trying to reconcile all the problems with that particular holy book as your trying to do with the bible. Do your homework mate!
artfuld...that old "you were born there so you are Christian" is rubbish. There are Christians in communist, atheist China. What about that? There are non-Christians in "Christian" America. What about that? Study some logic sometime, mate. Perhaps then you would not have made such a non sequitur argument.
I'm sorry, but I just spent twenty minutes of my life watching this, looking for a refutation for Dawkins' views on religion, yet all I heard for the first fifteen minutes were pro wrestling flair over a match, and not a set of conditions where the premises are true and the conclusion false. I haven't heard premises even, only conclusions. I'm no master of logic, but as a student of philosophy I have to ask when the premises will be given, and when the conclusion will be shown, then refuted?
Well, if you're not an atheist, then there's no reason to fear the truth I slap down...concern is fine, but be more concerned about the lies and distortions and misrepresentations of atheists like Dawkins. Truth is fine, but lies hurt us all, whether they come from Christians or atheists.
Something I'd like to point out, not on the argument of religion vs. atheism, is the fact that you claimed he probably didn't write the book. This is a frustratingly ignorant idea as you have little fact to back up your opinion and you've clearly not researched his prior credentials. As an incredibly well educated man, he's been writing books for a good few decades and has no reason to hire a ghostwriter to write something for him. After you said that, I refused to acknowledge any other...
ahhh, vengeance...don't let your assumptions get you in a world of trouble. As a writer and publisher MYSELF, I do know something about the book publishing industry. Thus, with the fact that Dawkins has been shown to make multiple errors in his writings, and the fact that most popular writers do have a ghost writer, this lends credibility to my claim. So it is YOUR ignorance of the publishing industry that is showing here. Education is not the issue...TIME to write books is.
So, at the end of the day, either Dawkins doesn't check the work of his ghost writer, or he does incredibly shoddy research. Saying things like Paul wrote Hebrews without qualification shows an incredible ignorance. I even believe that Paul wrote it, but I wouldn't say it without qualifying it by also saying that claim has been questioned in scholarship.
Does this imply that you're a perfect writer who has had zero errors in your work? And, like Dawkins and many of the other great thinkers, I do not want feelings, but facts. I'd rather you place proof before me prior to you claiming authority as many christians do. And don't say they don't. I am still an episcopal (I'm not certain as to your denomination) and believe in god. I think it's good to have people question everything. I enjoy it. Note: I never said you couldn't question either.
Vengeanc...No, it does not imply more than what I pointed out. I have caught minor errors in my own work, BUT...nothing like that which comes from Dawkins on more or less a consistent basis when he attempts to address theological topics. The Bible actually encourages us to test things and question (Proverbs 14:15; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21). So I guess we agree on something.
Vengeanc...No, it does not imply more than what I pointed out. I have caught minor errors in my own work, BUT...nothing like that which comes from Dawkins on more or less a consistent basis when he attempts to address theological topics. The Bible actually encourages us to test things and question (Proverbs 14:15; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21). So I guess we agree on something.
Some guy found a capital city of an ancient culture? That information made it's way into 1 of many ancient scriptures? How does proving that recording of a peoples existance in your bible validate your argument and disprove Dawkins?
Kungfuish, very simple. It is one of many ways the Bible's veracity is proved. Skeptics were skeptical, and the historical record vindicated what the Bible had said to be true all along. This has happened many times. So Dawkins has no real basis for his claims.
Kungfuish...Claiming my responses are fallacies does not prove it. Listing a bunch of fallacies only proves you know how to list. I respond as I did three months ago: "Kungfuish, very simple. It is one of many ways the Bible's veracity is proved. Skeptics were skeptical, and the historical record vindicated what the Bible had said to be true all along. This has happened many times. So Dawkins has no real basis for his claims." That is my answer. If don't get it, you never will.
You are right, I don't understand. Dawkins still has a point of logic, and the discovery of an ancient city to have existed, validates nothing. "We found an ancient city, therefore God exists!"
I don't think that gives enough credit to refute Dawkins.
Kung. Dawkins has no point. If you make a claim, you should support the claim with evidence. All Dawkins did was ASSERT without any evidence or valid argument that the Bible is of "dubious origin and veracity." I refute him with credible sources and evidence, all you can do is try in vain to prop up the weak and unsupported claims of Dawkins. By the way, the straw man argument of "We found an ancient city, therefore God exists" won't work. I never posed that argument.
Kungfuish...In the context of the video I am debunking, no, that's not his point. His overall point is an opinion that itself has no substantial evidence to support it. But if he's going to make claims about the Bible, he needs to support such claims. He can't have it both ways...demanding evidence from believers when they make claims, but not presenting any when he makes his own.
you make a claim that god exists. what evidence is there besides the circular argument of, using the bible to prove god. there is nothing that proves there is a god, its purely faith. you contradicted yourself because you have no evidence to support your claim
hawksairbrush...If there is no God, then there would be no atheists who become theists and Christians based solely on scientific and reasonable grounds, like Anthony Flew. Your ignorance of evidence is not proof of "no evidence." The evidence is all around you (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-4) verified by scientific discovery.
So, you claim Dawkins outlines the points he wants to make, and carefully presents his information in an attempt to manipulate your truth. Yet the title of this post suggests you offer some supporting evidence to "Debunk Atheism". But I only see you cutting up a man, and not his evidence.
Kungfuish, yes, since I know a little something about the publishing industry, and I've seen that Dawkins has made some serious errors in his books, it is rational to presume he uses a ghost writer and doesn't check his/her work. Or, the other alternative is that he makes those errors himself. Take your pick. I do not cut up the man, I cut up his so-called evidence. Stay tuned...
This video was no better than your first I'm seriously considering not wasting 10 minutes watching the third and so on. You've wasted precious minutes of my time spelling words like context out for me without actually looking at the peices Dawkins Excerpts from the bibles and explains HOW they have been taken out of context. You used your own example to red baron the whole thing. I'm not sure if you did it on purpose or if you just don't see how you've completely negated exploring Dawkins ideas.
I've watched them all now and I can't say you made any valid arguements which is disappointing becuase I was really looking forward to seeing some arguements against what Dawkins was stating. You quoted some books and you seemed to assume that would suffice as an arguementwhen it really doesn't. I'mnot sureif you realize how badly you're misinterpreting Dawkins ifyou think these quotes actively engage and debunk the information he's putting forth. I'll gladly helpyou in any way I can if you like
eread2002. In case you missed it, I corrected my own error. LOL. I refute Dawkins over the series, which is not complete yet. Stay tuned...
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
@CRoadwarrior as i asked before what is your opinion on uncondistional predestaination as calvin type preachers believe . ps how are your studies going .......
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
zakabog. Actually, the video did have a point which you apparently missed. My example of Ps. 14:1 is a simple and clear example of just WHY taking something out of context produces nonsense, and WHY it is important to take context into consideration for proper understanding of ANY literature. If you don't get that you won't get anything.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
zakabog. My argument from context stands and simply points out that if you rip a passage out of context, you can make up practically any nonsense you want, and say the opposite of what the passage IN context actually said. In the series I do refute the claims of Dawkins. If you missed it, hit rewind.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Com457. Blah blah block zone...LOL.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
LOL...and donsteitz, you think you made any kind of argument worth addressing?? LOL. The joke is on you.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
LOL. Sarcasim will get you nowhere except perhaps the block zone, yellowporpoise. I never claimed to have "THE" ultimate interpretation and that I am the "only" man who does not take any verse out of context. There are many good Bible colleges and schools teaching sound hermeneutical skills all over the country. And people like Dawkins could benefit from them.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
i dont think he wil ever finish reading the book
BEOWULF9965 2 years ago 2
Beowulf...What the heck are you talking about? And if I had a dime for every lame comment about ratings, I'd be rich. If you can't make comments of substance, don't comment at all. Ratings don't prove squat, except that some are preoccupied with inconsequential things.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
if ratings are so inconsequential then why dont you enable the ratings.
BEOWULF9965 2 years ago 9
You miss the point. They are meaningless but some people try to use them as if they were some accurate measure of the quality of a video. There is a reason YT allows you to put the ratings on or off. I elect to have them off so that the CONTENT of a video can be the focus. The rating system is flawed anyway, as I have noticed that anyone with several computers and different IP addresses can vote more than once, AND there is the issue of 2 people voting while 2,000 watched. You figure it out
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
no wonder the comments are disabled i have noticed that almost every every pro christian channel on you tube i see that the comment ratings are disabled. just like their god they dont take critique very well.
BEOWULF9965 2 years ago 5
And you, snain1, are in the block zone and have nothing of substance to say.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
In the 20 minutes of parts 1 and 2 you made NO points against Dawkins claims. You've only made a string of "arguements" based on logical fallicies. Not much of a smackdown.
TBucker 2 years ago
TBucker. Actually, I did make points against Dawkins' claims. If you missed them that's your problem. I started with general points against what he does (take passages out of context) and then moved on in the series to get to specific points. So, I suggest you pay closer attention and perhaps you will learn a thing or two if your bias for Dawkins does not hinder your ability to think.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit listening to you. You are the type of person that would believe anything that you see or read,,,,as long as it agrees with what YOU think,,,,,open your eyes
bonkers73 2 years ago
bonkers73. LOL...I think you need to look in the mirror, because you false claims about me probably apply to you more than me. I actually TEST what I see and read as prescribed in the Bible (1 John 4:1). My eyes ARE open. The question is...are YOURS?
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Your an idoit.
jamie30701 3 years ago
Ah yes, when you can't handle the truth with logic and reason, ad hominem attack...Thanks for demonstrating you lack of both, jamie30701.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Inflated ego much?
Davotheravo123 3 years ago
Davotheravo123...Ego? What's that? lol.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You've merged anti-theism with atheism.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
No, Kungfuish, THEY have merged them. Atheism is nothing more than a form of anti-theism with various degrees of antagonism.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Sounds like a "With us, or against us" attitude.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
So enlighten me, us.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish...enlighten you? Or do you really mean, "provide something I can deny based on my preconceptions"?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Wow, that's a mouthful of things I didn't say.
CRoadwarrior "to argue that the Bible yields "at best" no evidence at all, and so forth, shows a level of either ignorance or blatant disregard for facts."
Kungfuish "So enlighten me, us"
Remove my (our) ignorance. Educate us on these facts you claim to have.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
No, Kung, you said it...or should I say, that's what you really meant. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
No, Kungfuish, he is not producing valid alternative ideas that hold more "merit" in logic than the veracity of the Bible. Logic demands that he investigate the veracity of the Bible and then come to a reasoned conclusion, not merely claim there is no veracity to the Bible or that its veracity is "dubious." This is no "game." The truth is not a game, but I notice that atheists have a way of playing the rationalization game to get away from the truth.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
The rationalization game as you call it is hardly exclusive to atheists.
How very pretensious of you to dictate what is logical. In every corner of investigation of the bible yields at best no evidence at all, save for mentions of historical places included and begs for blindness to acheive standing. That is hardly "veracitous", and gives ANY assessment of its contents fair consideration.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish. Ah yes, the Tu Quoque fallacy mixed with a little straw man. I never claimed that rationalizing is exclusive to atheists, but when it comes to the Bible and Christianity, they are the kings and queens of it. It is not "pretentious" to know logic from study and know when others are being illogical. LOL. And to argue that the Bible yields "at best" no evidence at all, and so forth, shows a level of either ignorance or blatant disregard for facts.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
c-o-n-t-e-x, lol, retard
dhartin 3 years ago
Heyyy...dhartin...at least I can laugh at myself...the "retard" comment is not called for... the block zone is awaiting you if you keep that up.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
i turned it off at 1:06. some guy in his moms basement refuting Richard Dawkins......funny
bradreed 3 years ago
LOL...Your assumptions make you look foolish. Not in my "mom's" basement. Mom is 3,000 miles away. Now that's funny. Turned off the facts? Well that explains why you so blindly follow the foolishness of people like Dawkins. Reason and logic? LOLOL. You have neither.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
ok...so your not in your moms basement...im not sure why you go on the attack after that.....i have no reason or logic? dude, thats just an insult. typical christian
bradreed 3 years ago
bradreed...Stating a fact is not an insult. You can't claim to have "reason and logic" but dismiss them when confronted with the truths of Christianity.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
i think youre responding to the wrong guy. weve never discussed the 'truths' of chjristianity.
bradreed 3 years ago
Nope, bradreed. I know exactly who I'm talking to.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
If you're seriously interested in finding the truth, you need to study/watch/read Pastor Ray Hagin. He lived/preached the lie your living for 20 years until he stumbled on the truth in a book about Egypt. The truth is not in you bible...it's in Kemet. The white man cannot enslave your body, why do you let him enslave your mind? Egypt has a much richer historical record than anything that was plagiarized and put in the bible. Do your own research!
vetteluvnh 3 years ago
vetteluvnh. No, the "truth" does not come out of Kemet and especially out of "pastor" Hagin. I do my research. Apparently Hagin doesn't. He is a joke to me.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I understand that you've accepted "apologetics" over "evidence". I'm traveling to Kemet (Egypt) w/Pastor Hagin this October to VIEW the evidence for myself. These armchair debates are worthless. Like pastor Hagin says "No evidence, no argument. Go to the source and invalidate me." The bible is not evidence. It was "assembled" at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. under Roman Emperor Constantine. You have alot of faith in a politically motivated roman emperor to give you gods word.
vetteluvnh 3 years ago
vetteluvnh...LOL. You are the victim of rumor and hearsay. The Bible was NOT "assembled" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. You do not have accurate knowledge about the Council, and I suggest you do some research from credible sources to find out. I recommend F.F. Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture."
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
My friend you need to watch/study Pastor Ray Hagins. You talk about context, research, and veracity but you have no clue. The truth is in Kemet and was there thousands of years before it was stolen by greeks and romans. If the white man nolonger enslaves your body, why do you let him enslave your mind?
vetteluvnh 3 years ago
vetteluvnh...I do not need to watch/study a man. I follow Jesus mainly, along with His Scriptures. I talk about context, research and veracity because I have spent a great deal of time developing my understanding of the Bible. After listening to just a short clip of "pastor" Ray, I can say this without fear of credible contradiction that he needs a) the Spirit b) a good Biblical education. The Bible is not about any "white man," as it was produced in the East. I do have a clue. You don't.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
LOL..."pastor" Ray Hagins doesn't know the basics. In a video of his, he claims there's a contradiction between the geneaology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. He has no clue and lacks any level of scholarship.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
so which sect of christianity miss quotes the bible? and which has the right version of the good book? i used to be catholic and i know that they interpret the sacrement of bread and wine to literaly mean body and blood of christ while other sects feel that it is a symbolic offering. are all sects of christianity correct or is there only one true interpretation of the bible. as for the part of the bible being a historical document yes i feel that it is but not in the way that most do...
Arys16 3 years ago
you have made no credible argument. i'm very open to both sides of this debate and choose the atheist side. but you have honestly tested my patience. it would be more appreciable if you provided more examples maybe, such as the various stoning condoned by god, the mass killings of unbelievers, etc. in no way am i tryin to say i have this figured out and im absolute in my opinion, but it seems to me when i read these passages its clear cut that god endorsed these actions which seems immoral.
hawksairbrush 3 years ago
hawksairbrush...Your mere claim that I have made no credible argument proves nothing. Do you even know what a "credible" argument looks like? I do. I make the clear point that Dawkins takes Scripture out of context, and doing so is wrong and leads to false understandings. What you think is "clear cut" and "immoral" is not so if you take context into proper consideration.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
(see beginning of this comment on part 1)...So i continue to part 2 and here we go again, first 3 minutes wasted on absolutely nothing. Then the rest of the video you argue that since you can take psalm 14 out of contexts there for Dawkins is also taking the bible out of contexts, instead of actually refuting hes actual argument. This is called a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT! Very common with creationists.
I wont bother with part 3.
And btw, can you explain to me why are the ratings disabled?
JesusRape 3 years ago
JR...I think you need to take a good look in a logic text or two. What I did was give an EXAMPLE of how taking Scripture out of context can lead to nonsense, just as with what Dawkins does. That is not a straw man.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Equally how theists take people like Gould, Harris, Dawkins, Darwin, Einstein, etc out of context to try and prove their own belief.
ImaginaryGodBlessYou 3 years ago
Give one specific, checkable example of each person you mention how "theists take people like Gould, Harris, dawkins, Darwin, Einstein" out of context.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Einstein - Often missquoted him saying he was religious and believed in God which he had to correct several times.
Darwin - often quote mined saying the eye is too complex and required a creator, which is out of context.
Harris - very often miss representing his arguements.
Gould - Again missquoted on his thoughts on evolution and creation.
Dawkins - Never read any of his stuff, not a fan.
Theists missquote, quote mine, and miss represent atheistic arguements all the time.
ImaginaryGodBlessYou 3 years ago
Imaginary...You might want to try again...I asked for EXAMPLES of each, not affirmations or assertions. Anyone can assert anything.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Isn't that what you are doing Mr Warrior?
You are asserting that Dawkins is distorting the bible and taking it out of context, yet you fail to give any examples of how he does this.
You've spent 20 minutes talking and haven't made any valid points regarding how Dawkins has actually taken scripture quotations out of context. You really need to get to the point.
eskimokid 3 years ago
No, eskimokid, I make valid points along the way to my main points, and in this SERIES, I do show exactly how Dawkins takes Scripture out of context.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
My point is not to say that atheists are so much better at getting their facts right, but that theists fail in the same manner just as often if not more.
While many atheists might take some parts of the bible out of context there are many theists who take the same missquotes incontext to their own beliefs.
ImaginaryGodBlessYou 3 years ago
Imaginary...It is a fallacy to argue "You too." You don't get anywhere by arguing this way. Whenever anyone takes anyone out of context, it is wrong. And people like Dawkins don't get a pass just because they are supposed to be educated atheists. Atheists are not so much better at getting their facts right, as Alister McGrath has proven the many errors of Dawkins. I have seen a few in his latest book myself. So no, they are not "much better," especially when it comes to the Bible.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Do you not think it's possible that YOU are missquoting, miss representing, or taking out of context what Dawkins is presenting? Or how about the Bible? It's a fallacy to argue that it's a one sided coin here and that's what I'm presenting.
ImaginaryGodBlessYou 3 years ago
No, Imaginary, I am not misquoting or misrepresenting or taking out of context. If you claim it, you must substantiate it.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Good grief. I wish you guys could pay attention to detail. I never said he didn't write it. I said "probably." Do you know what the world "probably" means?? I strike fear in the hearts of atheists who have half a brain and have been refuted by me and know the truth. Obviously, you either don't have half a brain or you haven't experienced the warrior slapdown. LOL. SuperAtheistBoy...LOOL You're nowhere near "super."
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I'm not of any particular faith. I found his documentary was fairly harsh with how he attacked other peoples' faiths, but I also found that what other people said was questionable, and perhaps even worrying. Of course, the great majority of religious people are not like the extreme examples shown in the video, but taking scriptures out of context, or outright distorting them, surely the guy who thought murder was justified was doing this. I think the video at least raised a few points.
Froggity 3 years ago
Froggity...People often distort the facts so that their position can seem more plausible. That is why they must distort the Bible and Christian theology. But what are you referring to regarding justifying "murder"?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Frog, I didn't see that he "attacked" any particular faith. He posed questions of logic and reasoning. The global culture we live in often treats the questioning of faith as taboo.
Religion claims the bible isn't to be taken literally, but if questions it, they are accused of "distorting". How can one distort something that isn't substantial enough by its own followers to be literal?
Kungfuish 3 years ago 2
Dear CRoadwarrior, I just spent 9 minutes and 49 seconds waiting for you to give an example of a "bible distortion" by Richard Dawkins... I didn't hear any...
denzilla171 3 years ago
denzilla...You might want to hold that assertion until AFTER you have seen the whole series I completed so far. More are coming. But I did refute some of his irrational arguments.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I'm confused, if Youtube only lets you make a 10 minute video, then why are there other videos which are over 1 hour?
gneisenau321 3 years ago
gneisenau321...I'm not sure about that. But I think some older YT users have this ability, and you can do longer vids by "live" upload. But for the most part, today you can only upload a video that is 100 mb or less and about 10-11 min each.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Another 10 minutes, but alas, all you've done in this video is question Dawkin's assertion that the bible is dubious of origin. Well actually, you argue against the notion that the bible itself is dubious, as opposed to its origin, but either way, why not take a stab at his actual arguments rather than nitpick like this?
Hopefully there are some actual refutations in your third video.
AKPhilosopher 3 years ago
In this regard, the Bible was a VERY Scientific book... About 2000 years ago. It contains plenty of tidbits about the world we live in, that today we have proven to be factual information. It differs from Science in that when one of these theories is proven incorrect instead, it's still sort've lingers around. Because the Bible is "The Word of God", then the SCIENCE must be wrong!
The God hypothesis was perfectly valid 2000 years ago, but today, in light of evidence, it simply falls short.
BlackstarSirius 3 years ago
Actually, the opposite is true. The more we learn about the world from science (especially biology) the more we find that a Creator seems more reasonable. Anthony Flew, former avid atheist, NOW has changed his mind, not due to a "born again" experience or "conversion," but due to the SCIENCE of modern genetics and other evidence for a Creator and Designer of the universe. So no, it far from falls short. It is growing as the real evidence mounts.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Why is it that any time Science indicates the tiniest little find for the Bible it ultimately proves GOD exists? But when findings in favour of Evolution surface (As they often do.) Christians are still skeptical because we don't have every single link between every species ever? It's like how Dawkins said, about every time a slot in a species' fossil record is filled, in the eyes of the Creationist it just "Creates two more gaps on either side of it."
BlackstarSirius 3 years ago
Blackstar, you do oversimplify the issue. This is not about "tiny" little finds, and is not about what "proves" God. We are talking about the veracity of the Bible here. Findings in favor of evolution are colored by an evolutionary bias inherent in the "system." It's been documented that a part of a dolphin rib was mistaken for a missing link "hominid" bone. Why? A desire to "find" evolution, even when it doesn't exist. There was Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, and others.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Yes, because Evolutionists are apparently the only ones subject to a confirmation bias. Plenty of finds have been proven to be hoaxes or just something else altogether, but they're dwarved by the vast amount of evidence we have for evolution. And perhaps it's just a matter of opinion, but I would consider some good parameters for boat design, or the fact that the Earth floats in space as little more than "Small scientific insight." (By today's standards)
BlackstarSirius 3 years ago
"Vast amounts of evidence" we have for evolution? LOL. Now that's funny. What we really have is vast amounts of speculation around the evidence in nature that could just as easily be explained by a Creator who made similar creatures with similar structures (e.g., homology). So please, you are not going to get anywhere with those kind of assertions. I suggest you read Dr. Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And we have "Plenty of documentation that anyone who questions the Bible is ignorant?" Whenever evidence appears that contradicts your beliefs (As I know happens pretty frequently) the other person "Must not have done very much research", unfortunately there's plenty of evidence FOR the veracity of the Bible AND against it. If your argument is strictly for the "Veracity of the Bible" like I said, it has plenty of fun facts in it. If you bleed someone, they'll die. Hittites are real. etc.
BlackstarSirius 3 years ago
And ultimately, logic dictates that if we have two contradictory claims (the Bible is historical/the Bible is not historical) then someone must be WRONG. Too many people don't have discernment skills to tell who's right or who's wrong, so that the so-called evidence "against it" can be seen for what it is. So the "AND against it" is no real argument. It's a superficial attempt to justify those who are lazy and just take sides based on their bias and not a careful examination of the facts.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Yet again, you don't really quote Dawkins' "Distortion of the Bible" you just site an example of how someone MIGHT.
And yes, the Bible has very questionable origins, there's not really much of an argument there, given that 2/3rds of the world aren't Christians. Just because you can prove the existence of Hittite or even of Jesus, doesn't that automatically proves they were magical. The Bible holds numerous, small insights into Science and ancient culture... But... Not much else.
BlackstarSirius 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins Qoutes:
"Science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil"
"your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but...it looks like a petrol engine."
"If you have a faith, it is...evidence."
"Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not...with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have...spurious effects. ...the apparent effect might have happened by chance alone."
Taking things outa context is fun!
EmergingPhilosopher 3 years ago
Yeah, Emerging...taking things out of context can be fun...lol...when you're doing it back to an atheist who regularly does the same to the Bible. Ohhh what a rushhhh!
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
...so, don't let your assumptions get you into big trouble. People with greater education than you or I have taken Dawkins to task on several points, and what I present here is only a small sample of what's out there.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You seem like a nice enough person, but very misguided... and slightly offensive if you weren't so funny spewing hypocrisy and (sorry!) ignorance. I feel as though I should warn you that eventually you'll probably going to look at these videos in the future and go "Man, what was I thinking? I should've done more credible research myself, and not display the perfect text book of a brainwashed Christian."
Sorry, but someone has to say these things.
EndlessVoids 3 years ago
What's really so funny, Endless, is the fact that while I am busy refuting nonsense from Dawkins and clear errors others of scholarship have revealed, all people like yourself can do is try to criticize me. The ignorance is not on my part. It is yours. I've done my homework, and the fact that you think I haven't shows just how much YOU have not done yours.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Dear, I hate to tell you, but you didn't debunk anything. You just stroked your ego for about ten minutes. It was cute and all, but it wasn't productive one bit. What are your qualifications anyway? What school did you go do? How long did you study? I apologize if you covered all of this VERY important information in another video, but I'm not about to search 40 videos just to hear all you did was graduate high school.
EndlessVoids 3 years ago
Well, Endless, you can claim all day that I didn't debunk anything, but this only shows how little you know of debunking. Stroked my ego for ten minutes? Now that is a gross distortion of reality if I ever saw one. Just admit that you are a Dawkins fan, and no matter what silly claim he makes, he's right. My qualifications? I have two earned degrees and I'm working on a third. I am a theology major but I also study science, history, linguistics and so forth...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Once again, a video full of nothing but nonsense. And you didn't even address any of Dawkins' claim in this video. And Bible stories such as the Genesis creation and the supposed worldwide flood are 2 major examples of the Bible being extremely historically inaccurate. But keep making videos though! There's no better way of denigrating a cause than by using bad arguments to support it.
GuyaRicanMC 3 years ago 2
Ok, GuyaRicanMC, this is your second false and dishonest claim about my vids. To the block zone...You wouldn't know a good argument vs. a bad one if it slapped you in the face, broke your jaw, and laid you up in the hospital for 40 days and 40 nights.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
OK, once again I'm going to ask you to back up your claims with evidence. Do you have ANY PROOF that Dawkins used a ghost writer?
What SPECIFICALLY are the errors of fact in his book.
Lastly you have to be a sociopath to think that millions of children deserved to drown in your Bible fantasy known as "The Flood". Children who were not even old enough to conceive of a vengeful God much less repent for their "sins".
This is called "moron theology" it's not intelligent or moral.
manyhue 3 years ago
manyhue, first of all, please note that I said he PROBABLY has one. It's a common thing in the publishing industry. I suggest you look that up if you don't know that. Second, I believe I laid the specific errors in prior texting. Now I've just relocated so all my books and things are unorganized, so I can't give you specifics right away. But I can provide them. Sociopath? No. Just someone who gets the theological point that a Creator holy God has the right to judge His creation...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
lozcast, actually if you notice, under the "Tags" section to your right the word "comedy" does appear. However, this is far from simple comedy. All my claims about Dawkins are true. Dawkins has not done his homework on the theological issues. These vids are not about his book but the video series he did based on his book. And please explain how you know the state of my mind regarding how "open" it is. Perhaps you should look at the plank in your own eye first?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
being the kind of person I am, I am interested in what your underlying motives are for posting your videos. I dont presume to know them but to me, the videos are meant to elicit a response. I am interested in understanding first before I make conclusions on things.
7othestars 3 years ago
7othestars, my motives are simple. They are a means to an end. They are a way to help people see the Light and disperse the darkness promoted by the likes of Dawkins. As for response, I am not all that concerned about responses. I do what I do regardless of responses, but I don't make videos to get or elicit any particular response.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Thank you for wasting my time. I'll go back to burning my bible.
Celticking36 3 years ago
Celticking36, no, thank Dawkins for making unfounded and unsupported claims making it necessary to make videos debunking the madness of atheism. Burn your Bible if you will, but I'd burn Dawkins' books first while you're at it. LOL
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And your reasons would be for what?Contradictions?Being too absurd?Being morally corrupt?Or maybe we are actually speaking of the bible.You make no sense as a usual theist.Please explain your point otherwise it is nonsense. :)
Celticking36 3 years ago
My reasons for what? Burning Dawkins' books? Because he distorts, misrepresents, and even lies (or makes grave errors) when it comes to theological issues. And his whole attitude towards his fellow humans who are theists is simply outlandish and an overreaction. Even some of his fellow atheists have criticized his antaganistic attitude. So there you have it...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
CRoadwarrior, you seem like a fairly intelligent, well spoken person, but i feel as if you are a bit ignorant as to what the bible "teaches", as are most christians. For example.. you do know it supports slavery, right? And that while you said it tells you to "question things", it at the same time tells you you are to be stoned to death and sent to hell for doing just that?
cheeseclo 3 years ago
Yes, cheeseclo, the warrior has some intellect, and some intellectual muscle too. That's why he slaps around stupidity from unbelievers so easily. But you make a grave mistake if you think the warrior is by any means "ignorant" about the Bible. I've been studying it almost longer than you've been alive on earth (if you posted your true age). I've been a Christian longer than you've been alive. So I've done some studying to know what I'm talking about...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
...and no, I do not know that the Bible "supports" slavery. That is a popular myth that I will be debunking in a forthcoming series. And as for your last comment, it is not Biblical to say that you are to be stoned to death and sent to hell for questioning things. Not so. If you are going to argue that, then prove it by quoting chapter and verse.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You have no evidence to prove that Dawkins used a ghost writer. Stop your slander and speak to specific examples. Was it immoral for God to destroy all of the animals on the planet during the "Great Flood" when he killed everyone including innocent children?
manyhue 3 years ago
manyhue, actually, as a writer and a publisher myself, I think I am somewhat qualified to know something about the publishing industry. People like Dawkins do not constantly churn out books without ghostwriters. Dawkins has either made grave errors in his own research, or he has a ghost writer that he does not fact-check behind. It's a documented fact that Dawkins has made many errors in his books. So you choose. Ghostwriter or Dawkins himself made the errors...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And also, manyhue, there is no slander here. I spoke from knowledge and facts. Was it immoral for God to judge a world for sin, a world He created? No. And it was not "all the animals" because some were spared. Remember the Ark? LOL. Innocent children? Hmm...someone hasn't taken theology 101.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
CroadWarrior. I'm going to have to stop watching your videos for now. It took you two videos to make one point about the Hemienities (spelling I'm sure is wrong). Seriously . . . get to the point.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Heyyy...HonestDiscussioner...you can stop watching all you like. Facts and real truth are more important than your concern for time. I won't become just another boring YouTuber just to please some folks who can't appreciate what I'm trying to do. Tell Dawkins to get to the facts, and I won't have to MAKE a point.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
That's very interestin CRoadwarrior . . . the reason I stopped watching is because YOU didn't get to the facts.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
HonestDiscussioner, well, I may not have gotten to the facts when YOU wanted me to, or the ones YOU wanted to hear, but that does not mean I did not present facts. As I have pointed out, pay attention to the fact that this is a series, which means what is not covered in one vid will be covered in another. You can't put all the facts in one 10 min. video, especially when there's so much nonsense from Dawkins to cover.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
it seems that you have only 2 words to talk about - 'dubious' and 'voracity', yet it takes you 20 mins to barely cover your side of the argument.
Dawkins is not referring to the Hittites as accuracy - he is referring to the way (and time scales of when) it was written.
The New Testament is actually written from mainly hearsay (at least 30 years after the death of Jesus more like 100),so Dawkins is correct in saying accuracy is dubious. Anyone would say the same in a court of law.
BE QUICKER
Clavain2012 3 years ago
Quickness is irrelevant. Facts are. How I present evidence in my videos is my business. You don't like, go watch some boring atheist spew unsupported claims. Deal with the facts and stop quibbling over time...or stop commenting on my videos.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Quickness is relevant if you want people to watch your videos. Two minutes in and you had said nothing of any substance - I was interested in the subject but you lost me. You are not funny. You are not intelligent. You clearly didn't plan or script this video.
Fail.
Squagnut 3 years ago
red herring based on your unsupported opinion and ignorance, squagnut.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
...and with over 40,000 vid views, I "think" people are watching...silly and unfounded claims earn the block zone. Ohhh what a rushhh!
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
your views come purely from your title. i think u are smart enough to understand your video doesnt do much but provide one point that i never heard dawkins make about "there is no god"
hawksairbrush 3 years ago
Actually, my view does a great deal. It makes the point that people like Dawkins have no business, without proper study, making claims about the Bible. And you need to pay attention. I never claimed Dawkins made a point about "there is no god." That was an example of how dangerous and wrong it is to take Scripture out of context to "prove" something.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
well you show an example of how the bible can be taken out of context, but u dont prove Dawkins does so.
hawksairbrush 3 years ago
hawksairbrush...I DO prove he does take Scripture out of context in the series. This is only part 2.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Wow, that was almost as boring as it is useless. You managed to fill 10 minutes without saying a thing. For someone who attacks "atheists" (I love your broad generalisations)on their facts, you managed not to mention a single fact Dawkins gets wrong, in a video called "Refuting DAWKINS". Oh, and the weird voices REALLY aren't working in your favour.
therecordkeeper 3 years ago
therecordkeeper, I suggest you pay attention to the fact that this is a SERIES, and what isn't covered in one video will be covered in the others...stay tuned and perhaps learn something. Your unsupported opinion about my not saying "a thing," is nice, but it proves your bias, not my lack of substance. And I can use any voice I want...my videos...you don't have to watch.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I was very clear in what I said: when you spend ten minutes without a single sound argumentative sentence, that's enough for anyone to say that you haven't said a thing. And I have "supported" my opinion by pointing out that you haven't provided any evidence (even when supposedly, your main grief with Dawkins is that he hasn't). All you have done is state random conjectures (ghost writer, etc.) and claims (Dawkins has misread the bible etc.) without so much as an example.
therecordkeeper 3 years ago
therecordkeeper, as I said...this is a series...nothing more need be said except that you pay attention.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Voracity is a "big" word for Dawkins? Which chair at Oxford do you hold? Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. You are a nit...
I'm still waiting for you to refute Dawkins work...
chyrd 3 years ago
Heyyy....chyrd...buy a dictionary and learn how to spell veracity. I could care less if he held up a chair in the air for 5 years singing "I will survive." The man still doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to religion and theological matters and should stick with biology. Stay tuned...and you will see him refuted left and right, up and down, and all around, and when I'm done he'll look like an atheistic clown...LOL. The series is far from over...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Oops... I guess you got me because I typed voracity instead of veracity. Duh her duh her duh her. Chalk another victory up to the roadwarrior. I've heard about enough from you so I won't be hanging around while you willfully profess your ignorance in such an infantile way.
chyrd 3 years ago
chyrd, what the heck are you talking about? What "ignorance" is there in pointing out your bad spelling? See ya...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
bible is the greatest lie ever told, its fiction
augustus008 3 years ago
augustus008, easy to say...try proving it and see what happens. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
No fear here, either, and I'm an atheist. Theatrics and ego-stroking just don't do it for me.
mediusnacht 3 years ago
mediusnacht...lol...you have not faced the warrior in battle or seen him in action. Try it, and the fear will roll down your spine like a mighty flowing river. The theatrics and ego-stroking aren't what cause the fear...it's the facts that are irrefutable...they bring the fear. So stay tuned...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Wow. A little late on the response. And the response turns out to be more ego-stroking. Go figure.
mediusnacht 3 years ago
mediusnacht, well, some folks have a life and do not live on the Net. Regardless, perhaps try rendering a substantive response to the facts presented instead of unsubstantiated claims.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I like the double standard. You respond to me with comments about fear running down my spine, then accuse me of not rendering a substantive response. Meanwhile, your idea of a substantive response seems to be things like "God has already proven Himself. Try opening your eyes." or "Remember the Ark? LOL. Innocent children? Hmm...someone hasn't taken theology 101."
Very substantive, there.
mediusnacht 3 years ago
Actually, if you knew the issues, you'd understand that they are substantive points in summary form, as we are limited in characters here. The fear running down your spine comments are only jest, so lighten up. The warrior is going to bed.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
video is unorganized, none of the argument is set up in the c-o-n-t-e-x-t of Dawkins' work.
More than half of the video is fake wrestler warbling.
Speaking of lack of homework, the maker hasn't even read the book he's condemning!
stpuglo 3 years ago
stpuglo, you have no clue what you're talking about. I am NOT dealing with the book. It's about the v-i-d-e-o. I happen to mention his book at times, but my vids focus on the video. Got it? Good. As for homework, I am in the process of reading his inane rubbish right now. So please, check your assumptions at the Internet portal. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
this guy is a joke, You happen to be a christian because u were born in the west, had u been born in the middle east you'd be a muslim, and i imagine you'd be trying to reconcile all the problems with that particular holy book as your trying to do with the bible. Do your homework mate!
artfuld0dg3r 3 years ago
artfuld...that old "you were born there so you are Christian" is rubbish. There are Christians in communist, atheist China. What about that? There are non-Christians in "Christian" America. What about that? Study some logic sometime, mate. Perhaps then you would not have made such a non sequitur argument.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Prove God. Make a knower out of me, not a believer.
ZarathustraDK 3 years ago
ZarathustraDK, God has already proven Himself. Try opening your eyes.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I just spent twenty minutes of my life watching this, looking for a refutation for Dawkins' views on religion, yet all I heard for the first fifteen minutes were pro wrestling flair over a match, and not a set of conditions where the premises are true and the conclusion false. I haven't heard premises even, only conclusions. I'm no master of logic, but as a student of philosophy I have to ask when the premises will be given, and when the conclusion will be shown, then refuted?
Dominobi 3 years ago
Dominobi, I suggest you stay tuned to the SERIES and perhaps you might learn a few things.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
...points you made, seeing that they could potentially be filled with just as much hot aired emotional opinion instead of fact.
You did not strike fear into my heart, only concern.
VENGEANCEDIRECTORSMS 3 years ago
Well, if you're not an atheist, then there's no reason to fear the truth I slap down...concern is fine, but be more concerned about the lies and distortions and misrepresentations of atheists like Dawkins. Truth is fine, but lies hurt us all, whether they come from Christians or atheists.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Something I'd like to point out, not on the argument of religion vs. atheism, is the fact that you claimed he probably didn't write the book. This is a frustratingly ignorant idea as you have little fact to back up your opinion and you've clearly not researched his prior credentials. As an incredibly well educated man, he's been writing books for a good few decades and has no reason to hire a ghostwriter to write something for him. After you said that, I refused to acknowledge any other...
VENGEANCEDIRECTORSMS 3 years ago
ahhh, vengeance...don't let your assumptions get you in a world of trouble. As a writer and publisher MYSELF, I do know something about the book publishing industry. Thus, with the fact that Dawkins has been shown to make multiple errors in his writings, and the fact that most popular writers do have a ghost writer, this lends credibility to my claim. So it is YOUR ignorance of the publishing industry that is showing here. Education is not the issue...TIME to write books is.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
So, at the end of the day, either Dawkins doesn't check the work of his ghost writer, or he does incredibly shoddy research. Saying things like Paul wrote Hebrews without qualification shows an incredible ignorance. I even believe that Paul wrote it, but I wouldn't say it without qualifying it by also saying that claim has been questioned in scholarship.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Does this imply that you're a perfect writer who has had zero errors in your work? And, like Dawkins and many of the other great thinkers, I do not want feelings, but facts. I'd rather you place proof before me prior to you claiming authority as many christians do. And don't say they don't. I am still an episcopal (I'm not certain as to your denomination) and believe in god. I think it's good to have people question everything. I enjoy it. Note: I never said you couldn't question either.
VENGEANCEDIRECTORSMS 3 years ago
Vengeanc...No, it does not imply more than what I pointed out. I have caught minor errors in my own work, BUT...nothing like that which comes from Dawkins on more or less a consistent basis when he attempts to address theological topics. The Bible actually encourages us to test things and question (Proverbs 14:15; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21). So I guess we agree on something.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Vengeanc...No, it does not imply more than what I pointed out. I have caught minor errors in my own work, BUT...nothing like that which comes from Dawkins on more or less a consistent basis when he attempts to address theological topics. The Bible actually encourages us to test things and question (Proverbs 14:15; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21). So I guess we agree on something.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Some guy found a capital city of an ancient culture? That information made it's way into 1 of many ancient scriptures? How does proving that recording of a peoples existance in your bible validate your argument and disprove Dawkins?
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish, very simple. It is one of many ways the Bible's veracity is proved. Skeptics were skeptical, and the historical record vindicated what the Bible had said to be true all along. This has happened many times. So Dawkins has no real basis for his claims.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I'll ask you again. How does it validate your argument?
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish...How does what validate what argument?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I said (partial quote) "... I only see you cutting up a man, and not his evidence ..."
Your reply (partial quote) "Kungfuish, yes, ... I do not cut up the man, I cut up his so-called evidence. Stay tuned..."
Your resonses (to me, and your video) are fallacies.
"Fallacies of Relevance"
"Appeal to Antiquity"
"Appeal to Authority"
"Fallacist's Fallacy".
So I ask again, how does cutting up Dawkins, and (as you claim) cutting up his evidence (that failed) validate your position?
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish...Claiming my responses are fallacies does not prove it. Listing a bunch of fallacies only proves you know how to list. I respond as I did three months ago: "Kungfuish, very simple. It is one of many ways the Bible's veracity is proved. Skeptics were skeptical, and the historical record vindicated what the Bible had said to be true all along. This has happened many times. So Dawkins has no real basis for his claims." That is my answer. If don't get it, you never will.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You are right, I don't understand. Dawkins still has a point of logic, and the discovery of an ancient city to have existed, validates nothing. "We found an ancient city, therefore God exists!"
I don't think that gives enough credit to refute Dawkins.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kung. Dawkins has no point. If you make a claim, you should support the claim with evidence. All Dawkins did was ASSERT without any evidence or valid argument that the Bible is of "dubious origin and veracity." I refute him with credible sources and evidence, all you can do is try in vain to prop up the weak and unsupported claims of Dawkins. By the way, the straw man argument of "We found an ancient city, therefore God exists" won't work. I never posed that argument.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Dawkins' point is that there is no substantial evidence supporting the existence of your god.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish...In the context of the video I am debunking, no, that's not his point. His overall point is an opinion that itself has no substantial evidence to support it. But if he's going to make claims about the Bible, he needs to support such claims. He can't have it both ways...demanding evidence from believers when they make claims, but not presenting any when he makes his own.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
you make a claim that god exists. what evidence is there besides the circular argument of, using the bible to prove god. there is nothing that proves there is a god, its purely faith. you contradicted yourself because you have no evidence to support your claim
hawksairbrush 3 years ago
hawksairbrush...If there is no God, then there would be no atheists who become theists and Christians based solely on scientific and reasonable grounds, like Anthony Flew. Your ignorance of evidence is not proof of "no evidence." The evidence is all around you (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-4) verified by scientific discovery.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
So, you claim Dawkins outlines the points he wants to make, and carefully presents his information in an attempt to manipulate your truth. Yet the title of this post suggests you offer some supporting evidence to "Debunk Atheism". But I only see you cutting up a man, and not his evidence.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Kungfuish, yes, since I know a little something about the publishing industry, and I've seen that Dawkins has made some serious errors in his books, it is rational to presume he uses a ghost writer and doesn't check his/her work. Or, the other alternative is that he makes those errors himself. Take your pick. I do not cut up the man, I cut up his so-called evidence. Stay tuned...
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
This video was no better than your first I'm seriously considering not wasting 10 minutes watching the third and so on. You've wasted precious minutes of my time spelling words like context out for me without actually looking at the peices Dawkins Excerpts from the bibles and explains HOW they have been taken out of context. You used your own example to red baron the whole thing. I'm not sure if you did it on purpose or if you just don't see how you've completely negated exploring Dawkins ideas.
TimKellear 3 years ago
Again, this is a series, and whether or not you get the points does not prove that valid points were not made. Red baron? What are you talking about?
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I've watched them all now and I can't say you made any valid arguements which is disappointing becuase I was really looking forward to seeing some arguements against what Dawkins was stating. You quoted some books and you seemed to assume that would suffice as an arguementwhen it really doesn't. I'mnot sureif you realize how badly you're misinterpreting Dawkins ifyou think these quotes actively engage and debunk the information he's putting forth. I'll gladly helpyou in any way I can if you like
TimKellear 3 years ago 3