Dawkins is ignorant about the details of your religion because they are arbitrary and ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps he'd do better to speak with a little more academic humility in areas outside his expertise, but his central point about faith remains valid. To make a virtue out of believing something because you believe believing it to be a virtue is blatantly circular. Living your life based on a logic that faulty is not only foolish but destructive.
I couldn't finish watching this video. Coming from someone who just finished reading the book, "I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist," I took the time to look up the rebuttal (like I always do for anything I'm researching) and that fact lies that all of those proofs do little to merit if jesus had existed. I will offer the benifit of the doubt that maybe he did, however, to claim the biblical story to be accurate is beyond any proof.
The maker of this video is the intellectual equivalent of a keyboard warrior.
Basically people can bitch about morals from religion etc untill the sun goes down........man is a glorified ape, natural selection is correct, this planet is not 6000 years old. So argue all you like and if believing in your god helps you sleep at night then so be it.
I watched your video in which you pose two questions to atheists and believed you to be an intelligent and thoughtful young man. Enough in fact to watch what you have done since then. However, given that you received so many excellent answers to that video, did not respond to any of them and then proceeded to make more videos of the same kind I judge you to be disingenuous at best.
First off, for once I meet a interesting Christian, but misguided as usual, sorry about that but I have to be honest.
1. The Julius Caesar scriptures are cross references, that encompasses from tax manuscripts to historical data, satirical criticism and gossip. While the Jesus scriptures are about copies of the same scripture, a non actually from the same time as supposedly Jesus walked the earth. What was it 40 years after Jesus dead that first gospel was writhed?
2. Absolute morals are an aberrations that leads to dogma, even the new testament with its good intentions has its moral aberrations.
Morals are there to guide us towards a good social behavior and some are universal which are those that arouse naturally as an emergent property of group social behavior.
I wrote "and some are universal which are those that arouse naturally as an emergent property of group social behavior. "
Then I ask "Why do you ask about morals when I already gave you an answer?"
You seem to make morality as a kind of "hokus pokus" thing and is not, it is well understood process in evolutionary psychology. Studies among primates have thrown some light into it too, and even economics.
They do contradict each other, and you fail. Dawkins is alot smarter then you. Do you really believe the earth is 6000 or so years old. They wouldn't be doing these things because they pick and choose shit in the bible. You have no idea what your talking about. Even if its true, who wants to follow some fucked up god that acts human, no god should make people suffer to prove a point or teach a lesson. Society=Morals, Religion is a part of society so it does effect morals. U lose my friend :)
haha, where do i begin? so much is flawed here...i dont mean to be hypocritical but your definition of human is where i have to begin, - to act human- what is that to you? and who are you to say whether or not (if a God existed) that he should do one thing or the other? very contradicting..but as seen time and time again, more reasons to dull out and evade truth in my opinion..
Wow, you fucking fail. Theres nothing wrong with that logic. I'm not evading the truth, your selling yourself short. Keep looking for the answer and don't just accept the first thing that comes along. A true god that "is all" and is a higher being would not have emotions like a human, he wouldn't get angry, he would ruin a mans life to prove a point to the devil. Those are things people do, not a god. You fucking fail at life. Do you really the earth is 6000 years old.
this is of course assuming that God was the first choice that came along, which you are incorrect on. why wouldnt God have emotions like a human? are we not the highest intelligent beings on this planet? Or are you one of those nuts that think we were created by a "seed" being planted by an alien life form that was created essentially the same way?... hahaha sounds pretty ridiculous...i'll take old fairy tales over modern any time..but keep testing your hypotheses',they might be proven sometime
Bahahah dude your funny. So you don't you don't respect what science has done for us? Then you should turn your pc off right now eh. The same people that gave you that, have pretty much disproven over half the claims in the bible. Im sorry, believing in a book written 2000 years ago by men, stupid ones I might ad, that didn't know very much lol. What a great idea, lets believe everything our ancestors said...even though there understanding is alot smaller then ours. Fail, your rational=Fail
once again, get the facts- it wasn't written 2,000 years ago. and their intelligence amplifies your stupidity,the basis of your argument is on a religion of its own, but only more recent and written by an infallibly stupid man..'origin of species' pfffttt should be changed to "the evolution of species within its origin"...and i do respect what science has done for us...and guess what? some of the most substantial scientists in history believed in God and the Bible- your argument=ULTIMATE FAILURE
and if you read the Bible carefully, you'd realize it doesn't claim the age of the earth, it claims the beginning of life....so is the earth exactly 6,000 years old? absolutely not....but is it 4.5 billion? hahahahahaha most ABSOLUTELY NOT....and just to remind you, time is a measurement on this earth by rotations around the sun...guess how long it takes Pluto to rotate once around the sun? you wouldn't believe it.wow a useful fact that science proves, which strengthens my argument..imaginethat
Richard Dawkins is a good scientist and no-one could dispute that. Both Dawkins was aware of the mistranslation of Isaiah in Matthew. Now, no-one is saying that Richard Dawkins is a Biblical scholar. He himself knows he is not a Biblical scholar, but does this really warrant him being called ignorant of the Bible and especially when compared to those Christians who do not even know who Isaiah is!
1: 5000 copies of the SAME manuscript do not add much to historical value. There just copies. 2: You're talking beside the point, being that he's saying Religious People don't take their morals from their religion. He does use a wrong example apparenlty. - And what's with the Gay=Abomination thing then? - On morals: Society dictates morals. Religions just represent these, but as they get written down they tend to change slower. But change they do (slavery, surpressing women, ...)
Are we all supposed to ignore the fact that the last question wasn't directed toward Christianity exclusively. Pretty sure the question was "People who believe, believe they get their moral values from religion... Where do atheists get their morals?" Where do you see Christianity in that question? Also even if it pertained only to the old testament laws, and no longer to Christians, how come Jews don't stone people?
Look at the last minute of the clip. Dawkins says that Christians pick and choose what we follow based on what we decide to follow. He doesn't even realize that we are not under old laws.
Finding thousands of copies from the same source is only evidence of the books popularity. Whether or not that book is accurate is another matter.
Yeah who would listen to Leviticus and try to make laws banning gay marrage.
The new testament is also anti-divorce, anti-women, and not anti-slavery. I don't know you and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But you have to admit those tenets of the NEW testamnet are also largely ignored.
how do you get "Jesus probably did not exist" out of Dawkins saying"he almost certainly did"?sadly the rest of your video shows that your reasoning is on par with your listening comprehension,and reading comprehension for that matter,you printed out the statement in text form to boot!
Well, the Rational Response squad claims that Jesus did not exist at all. In the interview Dawkins says, "if he existed". I find it amazing that someone can even begin to question the life of a man who has had a greater impact on this world than any other human being has ever lived. We mark our calendar years by his life!
And pagans used to mark theirs by Hubal. The effect a man has on people does not preclude him from being fictional. That said, I do believe he was real, though, as the fragility of report often teaches us, the likelihood of his non-existence is wide-open.
What I also find amusing is that you and others will claim that one has no place in a religious debate, yet somehow have no logical issue with this:
God created man knowing he would sin, wiped them out because he was dissatisfied, impregnated himself into a virgin so he could sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he could forgive your sin...
Dawkins does not need to justify himself before such lack of logic, reason and critical thought. I mean no offense to you, but that is my opinion.
If Dawkins wants to persuade billions of people that their entire world view is a lie, he better do a little more research on exactly what we believe. He makes a fool of himself when he shows his ignorance.
"he better do a little more research on exactly what we believe."
You mean YOUR interpretation of Christianity or one of the million others? Dawkins does not need to go into great detail to see that the bible is a ridiculous tale. He relies on evidence while you rely on faith, the two are worlds apart. I suggest you look at more than this one clip, as you are being hypocritical in expecting him to do such research while you do not.
"If Dawkins wants to persuade billions of people that their entire world view is a lie, he better do a little more research on exactly what we believe."
Your video had nothing to do with what Dawkins claims Christians believe. Do you have refernces to Dawkins saying anything incorrect about the beliefs of a Christian sect?
his proof is simple, he is showing how the man is very much uneducated in the Hebrew and new testament God, and he is not incorrect- there are billions of videos showing his errors in debating Christian sects, but we all don't know everything, agreed? Just like I don't know about alien life forms planting their sperm on the earths surface, and them having to be produced the same way as being a viable hypotheses to the origin of life-my opinion.scares me to think dawkins considers it probable
Dawkins considers it no more probable than you do, and if you'd properly ever heard him talk on the matter you'd know that.
My point remains unanswered - what exactly has Dawkins incorrectly surmised? It's all well and good to say that he is 'uninformed' about scripture, it's another (far more intellectually relevant) thing to point out examples of such ignorance.
old law was not "put to death", and the NT clearly states several times that the old law shall stand until the end of time. Apparently some fundie Christians understand this, yet others ignore it. You must also realise that a "perfect" creator would have no need to alter his perfect word - an ultimate weaknesses of this theory.
Dawkins isn't perfect, none of us are...but if more were like him we would not suffer the ignoranced that we do, nor would we have to endure the delusion of religion.
The benefit we all have is understanding the absolute holiness of God from the old law so that we may fully appreciate just how much grace we are given under the new law of grace through Christ. Dawkins needs to do his homework.
You assume that evidence of a man simply existing is evidence of his connection with a higher power, yet this is quite a fallacy. What you follow is the beliefs of men living in an age of unknown, and for some reason you expect others to follow suit.
you cannot use the bible as historical referance.
UprisingOfTheYawn 1 year ago
Dawkins is ignorant about the details of your religion because they are arbitrary and ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps he'd do better to speak with a little more academic humility in areas outside his expertise, but his central point about faith remains valid. To make a virtue out of believing something because you believe believing it to be a virtue is blatantly circular. Living your life based on a logic that faulty is not only foolish but destructive.
laserpig 2 years ago
I couldn't finish watching this video. Coming from someone who just finished reading the book, "I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist," I took the time to look up the rebuttal (like I always do for anything I'm researching) and that fact lies that all of those proofs do little to merit if jesus had existed. I will offer the benifit of the doubt that maybe he did, however, to claim the biblical story to be accurate is beyond any proof.
DrDvids 2 years ago
Dawkins says that he believe Jesus existed, there is lots of evidence of Jesus. But there is more evidence of Julius Caesar.
Steinap 3 years ago
The maker of this video is the intellectual equivalent of a keyboard warrior.
Basically people can bitch about morals from religion etc untill the sun goes down........man is a glorified ape, natural selection is correct, this planet is not 6000 years old. So argue all you like and if believing in your god helps you sleep at night then so be it.
dimebagjimmy 3 years ago
I watched your video in which you pose two questions to atheists and believed you to be an intelligent and thoughtful young man. Enough in fact to watch what you have done since then. However, given that you received so many excellent answers to that video, did not respond to any of them and then proceeded to make more videos of the same kind I judge you to be disingenuous at best.
pmacgilli 3 years ago
Also I forgot to say this video has an awesome tone. :) Great job!
OblivionMon 3 years ago
I should pick up some of his books but from what I have heard he is not very knowledgeable about Christianity or religion in general.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
1)
First off, for once I meet a interesting Christian, but misguided as usual, sorry about that but I have to be honest.
1. The Julius Caesar scriptures are cross references, that encompasses from tax manuscripts to historical data, satirical criticism and gossip. While the Jesus scriptures are about copies of the same scripture, a non actually from the same time as supposedly Jesus walked the earth. What was it 40 years after Jesus dead that first gospel was writhed?
magua73 3 years ago
2)
2. Absolute morals are an aberrations that leads to dogma, even the new testament with its good intentions has its moral aberrations.
Morals are there to guide us towards a good social behavior and some are universal which are those that arouse naturally as an emergent property of group social behavior.
magua73 3 years ago
but where do morals come from? if its society, i think i want no part of it..
fukeweup 3 years ago
fukeweup asked "but where do morals come from? "
I wrote "and some are universal which are those that arouse naturally as an emergent property of group social behavior. "
Then I ask "Why do you ask about morals when I already gave you an answer?"
You seem to make morality as a kind of "hokus pokus" thing and is not, it is well understood process in evolutionary psychology. Studies among primates have thrown some light into it too, and even economics.
magua73 3 years ago
They do contradict each other, and you fail. Dawkins is alot smarter then you. Do you really believe the earth is 6000 or so years old. They wouldn't be doing these things because they pick and choose shit in the bible. You have no idea what your talking about. Even if its true, who wants to follow some fucked up god that acts human, no god should make people suffer to prove a point or teach a lesson. Society=Morals, Religion is a part of society so it does effect morals. U lose my friend :)
teamhex 3 years ago
haha, where do i begin? so much is flawed here...i dont mean to be hypocritical but your definition of human is where i have to begin, - to act human- what is that to you? and who are you to say whether or not (if a God existed) that he should do one thing or the other? very contradicting..but as seen time and time again, more reasons to dull out and evade truth in my opinion..
fukeweup 3 years ago
Wow, you fucking fail. Theres nothing wrong with that logic. I'm not evading the truth, your selling yourself short. Keep looking for the answer and don't just accept the first thing that comes along. A true god that "is all" and is a higher being would not have emotions like a human, he wouldn't get angry, he would ruin a mans life to prove a point to the devil. Those are things people do, not a god. You fucking fail at life. Do you really the earth is 6000 years old.
teamhex 3 years ago
this is of course assuming that God was the first choice that came along, which you are incorrect on. why wouldnt God have emotions like a human? are we not the highest intelligent beings on this planet? Or are you one of those nuts that think we were created by a "seed" being planted by an alien life form that was created essentially the same way?... hahaha sounds pretty ridiculous...i'll take old fairy tales over modern any time..but keep testing your hypotheses',they might be proven sometime
fukeweup 3 years ago
Bahahah dude your funny. So you don't you don't respect what science has done for us? Then you should turn your pc off right now eh. The same people that gave you that, have pretty much disproven over half the claims in the bible. Im sorry, believing in a book written 2000 years ago by men, stupid ones I might ad, that didn't know very much lol. What a great idea, lets believe everything our ancestors said...even though there understanding is alot smaller then ours. Fail, your rational=Fail
teamhex 3 years ago
once again, get the facts- it wasn't written 2,000 years ago. and their intelligence amplifies your stupidity,the basis of your argument is on a religion of its own, but only more recent and written by an infallibly stupid man..'origin of species' pfffttt should be changed to "the evolution of species within its origin"...and i do respect what science has done for us...and guess what? some of the most substantial scientists in history believed in God and the Bible- your argument=ULTIMATE FAILURE
fukeweup 3 years ago
and if you read the Bible carefully, you'd realize it doesn't claim the age of the earth, it claims the beginning of life....so is the earth exactly 6,000 years old? absolutely not....but is it 4.5 billion? hahahahahaha most ABSOLUTELY NOT....and just to remind you, time is a measurement on this earth by rotations around the sun...guess how long it takes Pluto to rotate once around the sun? you wouldn't believe it.wow a useful fact that science proves, which strengthens my argument..imaginethat
fukeweup 3 years ago
Dawkins understood the mistranslation of Isaiah, so I guess he is not as ignorant as most Christians are.
martynblackburn1977 3 years ago
Dawkins should stick to what he knows, science.
bodid50 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a good scientist and no-one could dispute that. Both Dawkins was aware of the mistranslation of Isaiah in Matthew. Now, no-one is saying that Richard Dawkins is a Biblical scholar. He himself knows he is not a Biblical scholar, but does this really warrant him being called ignorant of the Bible and especially when compared to those Christians who do not even know who Isaiah is!
martynblackburn1977 3 years ago
Ignorant means lacking knowledge. Dawkins and those christians are better described as "lamer" or "poser" for pretending they know the subject.
MarcinP2 3 years ago
THANK YOU!
fukeweup 3 years ago
1: 5000 copies of the SAME manuscript do not add much to historical value. There just copies. 2: You're talking beside the point, being that he's saying Religious People don't take their morals from their religion. He does use a wrong example apparenlty. - And what's with the Gay=Abomination thing then? - On morals: Society dictates morals. Religions just represent these, but as they get written down they tend to change slower. But change they do (slavery, surpressing women, ...)
wimscheers 3 years ago
Your lunacy is so much easier to take while watching porn on my other monitor.
BionicDance 3 years ago
He did not say that Jesus did not exist. In fact he said that Jesus did certainly exist, however, the claims of miracles, resurrection are not true.
niru4u2 3 years ago
Are we all supposed to ignore the fact that the last question wasn't directed toward Christianity exclusively. Pretty sure the question was "People who believe, believe they get their moral values from religion... Where do atheists get their morals?" Where do you see Christianity in that question? Also even if it pertained only to the old testament laws, and no longer to Christians, how come Jews don't stone people?
theOvin2 3 years ago
Look at the last minute of the clip. Dawkins says that Christians pick and choose what we follow based on what we decide to follow. He doesn't even realize that we are not under old laws.
bodid50 3 years ago
Do follow the bible literally? If you don't, what tells you which parts to really follow?
theOvin2 3 years ago
Exactly
teamhex 3 years ago
the One who lives inside me,buddy
fukeweup 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your fathers cock?
teamhex 3 years ago
@bodid50 Christians pick and choose from the new laws as well.
DarkEmergence 5 days ago
"how could dawkins question if he existed?"
Finding thousands of copies from the same source is only evidence of the books popularity. Whether or not that book is accurate is another matter.
Yeah who would listen to Leviticus and try to make laws banning gay marrage.
The new testament is also anti-divorce, anti-women, and not anti-slavery. I don't know you and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But you have to admit those tenets of the NEW testamnet are also largely ignored.
bacon4247 3 years ago
Also you don't see Jews stoning people to death do you? They don't have the luxury of Jesus' revisionism.
I'm not sure about this but the "inch of skin" line may have been from the Quran
Keep in mind they are discussing Religion in general not only Christianity
bacon4247 3 years ago
how do you get "Jesus probably did not exist" out of Dawkins saying"he almost certainly did"?sadly the rest of your video shows that your reasoning is on par with your listening comprehension,and reading comprehension for that matter,you printed out the statement in text form to boot!
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
Well, the Rational Response squad claims that Jesus did not exist at all. In the interview Dawkins says, "if he existed". I find it amazing that someone can even begin to question the life of a man who has had a greater impact on this world than any other human being has ever lived. We mark our calendar years by his life!
bodid50 3 years ago
"We mark our calendar years by his life!"
And pagans used to mark theirs by Hubal. The effect a man has on people does not preclude him from being fictional. That said, I do believe he was real, though, as the fragility of report often teaches us, the likelihood of his non-existence is wide-open.
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
I see now. I should have said that Dawkins said he "may not have existed". You're right there. My bad.
bodid50 3 years ago
What I also find amusing is that you and others will claim that one has no place in a religious debate, yet somehow have no logical issue with this:
God created man knowing he would sin, wiped them out because he was dissatisfied, impregnated himself into a virgin so he could sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he could forgive your sin...
Dawkins does not need to justify himself before such lack of logic, reason and critical thought. I mean no offense to you, but that is my opinion.
ulthea 3 years ago
If Dawkins wants to persuade billions of people that their entire world view is a lie, he better do a little more research on exactly what we believe. He makes a fool of himself when he shows his ignorance.
bodid50 3 years ago
"he better do a little more research on exactly what we believe."
You mean YOUR interpretation of Christianity or one of the million others? Dawkins does not need to go into great detail to see that the bible is a ridiculous tale. He relies on evidence while you rely on faith, the two are worlds apart. I suggest you look at more than this one clip, as you are being hypocritical in expecting him to do such research while you do not.
ulthea 3 years ago
"If Dawkins wants to persuade billions of people that their entire world view is a lie, he better do a little more research on exactly what we believe."
Your video had nothing to do with what Dawkins claims Christians believe. Do you have refernces to Dawkins saying anything incorrect about the beliefs of a Christian sect?
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
his proof is simple, he is showing how the man is very much uneducated in the Hebrew and new testament God, and he is not incorrect- there are billions of videos showing his errors in debating Christian sects, but we all don't know everything, agreed? Just like I don't know about alien life forms planting their sperm on the earths surface, and them having to be produced the same way as being a viable hypotheses to the origin of life-my opinion.scares me to think dawkins considers it probable
fukeweup 3 years ago
Dawkins considers it no more probable than you do, and if you'd properly ever heard him talk on the matter you'd know that.
My point remains unanswered - what exactly has Dawkins incorrectly surmised? It's all well and good to say that he is 'uninformed' about scripture, it's another (far more intellectually relevant) thing to point out examples of such ignorance.
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
old law was not "put to death", and the NT clearly states several times that the old law shall stand until the end of time. Apparently some fundie Christians understand this, yet others ignore it. You must also realise that a "perfect" creator would have no need to alter his perfect word - an ultimate weaknesses of this theory.
Dawkins isn't perfect, none of us are...but if more were like him we would not suffer the ignoranced that we do, nor would we have to endure the delusion of religion.
ulthea 3 years ago
The benefit we all have is understanding the absolute holiness of God from the old law so that we may fully appreciate just how much grace we are given under the new law of grace through Christ. Dawkins needs to do his homework.
bodid50 3 years ago
So what your saying is the bible is a cosmic game of good-cop bad-cop?
bacon4247 3 years ago
"Dawkins needs to do his homework."
You assume that evidence of a man simply existing is evidence of his connection with a higher power, yet this is quite a fallacy. What you follow is the beliefs of men living in an age of unknown, and for some reason you expect others to follow suit.
In doing so I feel you are being quite dishonest.
ulthea 3 years ago
What part of the bible contains the ten commandments?
theOvin2 3 years ago