dawkins is scared if not he would have a fully dabate not a conversation that each persons had a couple mins to respond to the other dawkins doesnt debate craig cause he is completely ignorant on the subject he doesnt support and he knows it
Dawkins' response was a rhetorically powerful combination of strawmen and unimpressive analysis. If one ever needed a demonstration that robust scientific credentials need not translate into philosophical acumen, one need only watch Dawkins debate.
William Lane Craig's arguements are a fucking joke, one of his arguements is, "There is a possibility God exists, therefore God exists". I'm not even fucking joking, he actually said that during this debate, amazing how some people can't see how illogical they are.
@MegaBlueZOMBIE It's illogical only if you pretend there weren't other components. The argument Craig is trying to make is a permutation of the ontological argument, but one which avoids the "existence isn't a predicate" objection.
@AvadaKedavra1138 That is a direct quote from WLC if you watched the full debate..All of his arguements are illogical, especially since he believes in a SPECIFIC God(yahweh). He puts his beliefs in front of logic, as do most believers, you could make a strong arguement for believing in A God, but believing in a specific God just because you were raised that way by your parents and raised in that culture is absolutely rediculous since there is equally no proof for any.
richard dawkins is simply wrong about what craig preaches. anyone with a philisophical mind and who watched the debate will realize how ignorant, not stupid, richard dawkins is.
Watch the famous Craig /HItchens debate 2009 and at the end Craig can barely speak or after his summary get back to his chair without falling to his knees . Looked as though Prof Craig was on the verge of a nervous breakdown , lol....and Hitchens was being gentle with him too.
@Treadlightlyful Yet it's Hitchens the one that yields his last 5 minutes. It is also Hitch the one that "comes undone" during the Q&A period with Craig. Talk about barely speaking, eh?
"What is the colour of jealousy?" is a silly question? Where did Dawkins come up with that one? Are all questions silly if you truly believe Everything came from Nothingness and will eventually return to Nothingness? And by the way, all Atheists, in private-- at least subconsciously-- must borrow the Theistic belief that there is some form of existence after death, otherwise, they would have no real reason to live. Or maybe they aren't bothered by their Nihilism, and can just... get on with It.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y I really really sincerely believe that death is final, and there is only blackness. Can you remember before you were born? There was nothingness then. Death is probably the same thing. My reasons to live are my friends, my family, and my hobbies. The fact that YOU can't live without an afterlife, does not stop me or any other professing atheist to do so. I'm sometimes depressed, but I think we all are some point in our lives, without it meaning much.
Not all questions. And please point out the part in the BB theory where it says everything came from nothing.
I imagine death as trying to remember the period before birth.
I would like to believe in some form of afterlife, and who knows, maybe our conciousness lives on, but it's wishful thinking. No point if there is no afterlife? That is naive. What is the point of the life form GFA-J1? We exist because we exist.
@MegaLolburger "No point if there is no afterlife? That is naive".
While it's true that someone can have some type of individual purpose in life such as "Preserving the peace", life as a whole truly is meaningless if there is no afterlife. "We exist because we exist" is not an answer to why we exist. That's like saying "I eat food because I eat food". It's not a real answer, just a jog around it.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y You obviously are a moron who hasn't looked up any arguments for atheism. Some believe the universe always existed and some believe in mix of multiverse theory which you don't even know about. So tell me do Christians believe God came from nothing or always existed? That is even more silly to believe an omnipotent being could even exist.
now that im seeing this full video... NO WONDER dawkins has better things to do than debate a professional debater! I mean, look at the arena. The microphone is set up inside a mock boxing ring. It suggests that the whole point of this is just fighting. Rather than truley understand and value what we are debating about. I heard that Craigs last debate that dawkins didnt show for, craig set out an empty chair to showcase dawkins "cowardliness". It's rediculous if you ask me.
@WolfgangBrozart I think he actually did, as in a deep intake of breath swelling the chest in awe, kind of thing. He talks in an almost classical English, like if Richard use the word "gay" he would probably mean it as "happy".
He talks on his iPhone, he watches his tv, he takes potentially life saving medicines,......if science got these things so wrong then quite obviously the same science has missed the mark with evolution. People like Craig will always struggle. His reluctance to seek the truth is irresponsible.
@Leehamism Actually William Lane Craig accepts evolution and the big bang.I am an atheist too and I think many of his argumants are false but I'm just saying...
Dawkins answers it perfectly in his first sentence. It's an emotional response to the brutal reality of the universe. Humans are emotional creatures, who love those close to them and fear pain, suffering and death. So it's only natural that they would turn to god or some sort of supernatural explanation to comfort them. Hey to each his/her own. If it makes you feel better and gives you comfort then so be it, as for me I seek the truth.
@NickoliLion Yeah but neither can Christians. If you want to go down that line of reasoning then nothing can be objectively proven since all experience is ultimately subjective.
Only a materialist would argue that all knowledge is based on sensory experience and that because of that, absolutes cannot exist, (except for the absolute that absolutes cannot exist).
But, a rationalist would say that all knowledge already exists in the mind and that you may know anything simply by following a simple reasoning process.
@NickoliLion But a rationalist would also want some form of evidence to support his reasoning. He wouldn't jump to conclusions about divine intervention just because something occurred that he didn't quite understand would he? How do you propose to reason without experience or evidence?
@megamarsvin Of course they would need evidence. However, they believe that you don't necessarily need physical evidence because mental or logical evidence is all you need. Rationalist don't necessarily believe in some sort of a god (although many of them do).
@NickoliLion Can you define 'mental evidence' for me? Does it sound much like the average theist's argument, i.e. "I don't understand some things so God must be responsible?"
Perhaps I am too much of a materialist I've just never been able to follow such a line of reasoning. The reason I believe external evidence is necessary is that it's too easy for the brain to deceive itself, in fact I believe it may be one of its primary survival mechanisms.
@NickoliLion Thought experiments are great and very useful but I don't know how they can be evidence of anything without objective evidence. In fact in my experience among theists and even deists it tends to end in statements like "Life is so complex, it can only have been created by a God" which are not rational arguments in my view.
Can you give me an example of a piece of 'logical evidence' for the existence a God (just an example of what such a line of reasoning might be?)
@megamarsvin Well, being a angostical theist myself, I couldn't give you one that I fully agree with. However, if you wanted an example you could listen to a little of C.S. Lewis. He always enjoyed giving logical arguments for the existence of a god.
@NickoliLion I'm familiar with (some) of Lewis' work on the subject. While interesting I don't find his arguments very convincing. For their time I'm sure they were very advanced thoughts but looking at them today they seem to fall back on the classic arguments: Why morality if there's no God, why such precise laws of physics, what motivates the universe?
They are valid questions of course, but my question would be: Why presume a God? Or maybe rather: What do you mean by "God"?
Asking 'What is the color of jealousy?' is the same as asking: 'Why is the universe the way it is?' What a moronic thing to say. If the question: 'Why is the universe the way it is?' was never pondered in human thought or asked in human speech or ventured into in human endeavor, then we would not have fields in Astrophysics or Cosmology today. 'Richard Dawkins Beautifully Responds to William Lane Craig' ??? Surely not in this clip. Me thinks he should have debated him back in October 2011.
@TruthLover555 That wasn't the question, the question was "does the universe have purpose?" The theists claim it does because God created and gave it meaning. Well, where is their proof? They did not provide a single shred of evidence to support their claims. All they did was spew out poetic nonsense in an attempt to play off the emotions of the audience. When you accomplish that, you no longer need to use logic or reason in your argument. The atheists were addressing the question, the
@RoCk4LiFe90 Shut up you fat white boy, that phrase is from the fucking 90s if you want to base a comment on how smart I am. Maybe you're the dumb one. You're so pathetic, I'll be surprised if you figure out how to respond to this comment.
@thuggie1 You shouldn't, he's right and hes significantly or more like immensily smarter than Craig, if you look closely and craigs arguments and dawkins you will realise that Craig has nothing to back it up
Dawkins- has answer for about 95% of what he claims and it has been proven by evidence to be true
Craig-Well we already know how everything began(big bang) and there is atom, earth is billions of years old though he still believes in bible literally(means agreed with everything it says).
@Mindaugas7100 therefore craig is deluded and already automatically lose the argument because on scientific point of view he agree with Dawkins while on personal belief he follows the bible which is non evidencial in any way and have nothing to back it up.
My point is that Dawkins doesn't debate him because Craig refutes Evolution and real cause of everything which happens in the universe which also was proven.
@Mindaugas7100 i am not saying he is wrong. i mean if we all thought like most creationists we would think that bad smells coursed illness and plants eat soil. and a cut could mean death by septicemia.
@thuggie1 If you would like, i would send you a video his FULL explanation why he doesn't belief in god, why it's very improbable etc and all of these reason all rational. He also even states that he cannot say that god doesn't exist in scale 1-7 he said 6 because it will probably be impossible to prove whether he/she exist or not.
why do creationists always ask the question "well,why are we here then?what is the point of the universe?" for fuck sake we dont know!!but niether DO YOU!!!! they act all smugg like they have the answer!!the basis for having this answer?because a book written thousands of years ago by acient people who didnt know any better!i mean REALLY???no evidence that the book is genuine WHATSOEVER! and u think u have the answers?ur answer is as valid as any tribes ppl have today with their gods,amazing....
@reeceyhiggs Exactly, and Dawkins calls them out on this. He said something along the lines of, "scientists don't claim to have all the answers for why there is a universe is, that is what science is trying to figure out . . . just because science can't answer it yet, what on Earth makes religion think they have the answers." That may not be verbatim but he did address the creationists on that point and rightly so. There is no reason to believe religion can answer what science can't.
what could be a more beautiful way to end? we were birthed from stars and, in the end, we will shall return to the stars as stardust.
if you ask me, that's a much more beautiful way to look at death and the end than saying some of you get to go to a perfect place for all eternity, but those that weren't so lucky get to spend an eternity in fire with some guy w/ a pitchfork...
What's so beautiful about that? That stars have a romantic meaning in our culture?
It doesn't matter whether you (or the stuff your body was for a very short time made of) will become stardust or whatever when Dawkins is right & you'll loose any kind of consciousness once you're dead. As anything you ever did or experienced won't matter.
@mawa89g our existence and experience won't matter? sure mattered to me. and i'm sure to billions of other people, many of whom are probably not religious. you're saying that b/c humans, one of the billions of species that existed on this tiny rock in some average galaxy in the middle of nowhere, disappears, the universe itself would lose meaning? just b/c we have nothing awaiting us after death, doesn't mean our existence now in this universe doesn't matter.
What meaning? It wouldn't have an meaning at all..a huge emptiness expanding into nowhere, with stars which will be burned out someday.
How does your existence matter if this life is all there is? It doesn't matter if you die now or in 80 years, if you life a perfect life or as a Hitler. That won't change the slightest bit. Once you're dead, you'll lose any consciousness. And you can't escape that. How could there be a meaning?
"there's no afterlife all those things become meaningless"
Would they have any meaning in the first place? Some more complex forms of proteins walking around...and all will be extinguished some day anyways. I'd lose all consciousness once I'm dead, and this day will come. And as soon as that's the case, it wouldn't have mattered what I did or experienced.
@mawa89g Why not? Your children wouldn't remember you? Your family wouldn't mourn you? If you did anything in your life to help and improve others, they would not miss you?
It sounds very selfish to me to say "if I don't live forever, why would I care about anything?"
@mawa89g you misused my words. you're saying if there wasn't some thousand yr old book written by humans, an insignificant species on a tiny rock, the universe would have no meaning. life is meaning enough for us. just b/c their isn't some greater being giving us and the universe greater meaning doesn't mean that our lives aren't meaningless. you don't need to be afraid of the nothingness. as i said earlier, if you really look at it, it's beautiful.
" you're saying if there wasn't some thousand yr old book(...), the universe would have no meaning."
Ah, don't make it so simple for you. If there was no God, nothing after our life, if we'd just be extinguished, then life would have no meaning. Afaik also Dawkins basically said that. No purpose, pitiless indifference...
I don't see how "nothingness" could be beautiful. You can't experience beauty if you just are "away".
If so, meaning IS an illusion, how couldn't it be.
@mawa89g why do you need an AFTERlife for LIFE to have meaning? don't listen to craig prancing around saying atheists only have "illusory" meaning. It's real b/c it's real to us. The universe doesn't need a grand purpose for each of us to purpose.
And don't be scared of the "nothingness", you don't need to be there to realize the ultimate ending for all of us. Would you seriously rather have billions go to "hell" while a select few get to go to "heaven"? doesn't sound beautiful to me...
@mawa89g btw, did you bother watching carl sagan's the pale blue dot, yet? it's seriously worth watching. maybe it'll change your view of things. you don't need a god, an afterlife, or any of that for life to have meaning. those meanings are illusory and conceited. life itself is the meaning of life, not gathering points for an afterlife.
@mawa89g you should watch carl sagan's the blue dot. it's truly humbling. you will realize how insignificant our existence and our planet's existence is, but at the same time, every human has lived out their lives on this tiny rock. everyone you've ever loved, hated, envied, admired lived here. it's not illusory, as craig likes to parade around. there's nothing wrong with believing life is all there is. it's much better than saving up your chips for some medieval afterlife myth.
@NickoliLion lol why do you think einstein liked buddhism? it's not cruel or divisive like other religions. the buddha speaks nothing about afterlife or any higher power, except dharma, which is basically the universe itself. so you can see how science and buddhism can be quite complimentary and why many great minds saw it as one of the few "cosmic" beliefs.
@Vroom246 Buddhism is the 'religion' for many atheists. In a nutshell, it doesn't demand anything from you, or tells you that you are unworthy. It is a guideline to finding (your own) truth and it's a pathway to true happiness, achievable in this life. It tells you to think for yourself, don't just accept anything and wander off in delusion, even if it comes from Buddha himself. If you look up some quotes from Buddha, I think it is something most atheists could relate to.
I don't think it's a silly question at all, but craig's answers and his reasons for his answers to it are pretty silly. I think dawkin's left himself open for a fair attack with that statement he could have destroyed craig's arguments more effectively.
You know, I just want to say how nice it is that there can be a reasoned and mostly civil discussion here on a subjects which are notorious for stirring up negativity and emotionally laden ad hominem.
If love is an emotion, which Dawkins cannot deny that it is, then the caveats levelled at the atheists is the rational thing to do. What motivates a parent to warn his child against the dangers of drugs. Is it love, compassion? It must be because his child's drug abuse is the thing that stirs these intense emotions in his spirit. How much more should the atheists' collision course with God not provoke Christians to intense emotions of love and compassion? To love is to be rational.
@lessingtom Is it really though? Think of the other emotions you can have, fear, joy, surprise etc. These are fleeting, immediate things in response to stimuli. Love is more akin to (depending on perspective) a fundamental drive - i.e. the mechanism behind our urge to care for the people around us - or it is an act of altruism, freely given to support another individual, wanting what's best for them irrespective of yourself.
Both drives and altruism are well established evolutionarily.
@TurielD Awareness, Perception, Illusions, they have all one thing in common: You need to be conscious in order to be able to do it. A robot is not aware, it does not perceive, and it does not have illusions. It simply does what its mechanical parts makes it do.Just because it moves or makes sounds,does not mean that it is aware of its surroundings and own existence.Processing data does not create awareness,because its just moving parts.Comparing consciousness to rockets is a category mistake.
@Hannodb1961 It's only a category mistake if we accept your premise that conciousness is some kind of special case beyond other physical processes, I do not. If I mistake your meaning, what other things might fall in the 'conciousness' category?
As to needing conciousness to do those things, well, that's an assertion. I desire proof. If I fool a robot with an illusion, is it concious? Show me a reason to believe that conciousness is somehow beyond the physical. I won't assume it.
@TurielD We might not know what exactly the soul is and how consciousness works, but we do know what it is not. You can choose to doubt this, but I feel the burden of proof falls to you if you claim consciousness can be generated by moving parts. A robot is unconscious, because its builder knows that he didn't provide it with anything that makes it conscious, even though its program might make it appear otherwise. And I already told you of people who have verifiable out of body experiences.
With due respect. Was it merely your hands that typed your well articulated response to Hannodb1961 or was it something more than a merely physical response? If, as you say, consciousness is not something beyond the physical, then your hands are regulating and dominating your entire life. I sincerely doubt that they are. Your response is far too intelligent for it to be a mere physical/motorized one.
@TurielD Basically,your task is to explain how several parts, all of which is unconscious, can become aware of its collective existence when it moves in a certain way relative to each other. This is the basic proposition of materialism which I find preposterous. Consciousness is not a function of chemistry or machinery. It is awareness. If you state that all matter is aware to some degree, like the New Agers does, then this can make some sense. But the materialist proposition just doesn't add up
Exactly! Love is the driving force behind the urge to care for other people and that is precisely why God's Son become a man to save those who want to be saved. God sent his Son to seek and to save the lost. That must be real love.
For love to be love it must have constantly been the same emotional experience throughout the ages. It could never have been something that first had a primeval state of existence and then developed into something more advanced. Love is love.
Is this the old: "love didn't develop + lower forms of life don't experience it => higher forms of life didn't develop from lower forms of life => no evolution => creation => god" ?
Because you forgot to say why love could never have been something that first had a primeval state of existence and then developed into something more advanced
BTW "Love is love" is not an answer, it may sound 'deep and meaningful' but actually says nothing at all
"Love is love" was not intended to be an answer to any particular question. It is a statement that love has never evolved from a lower, primitive, primeval kind of love to a higher, more sophisticated and advanced kind. Love has always been love.
@lessingtom - and your whole argument rests on the fact that "love has never evolved from a lower, primitive, primeval kind of love" yet you shy away from giving any justification for that belief - why is that?
@Hannodb1961 are you under the impression that anything in our world does not follow the laws of physics? All things do, including our brains. What is there preventing a sufficiently complex machine from having a form of conciousness? You find it preposterous, very well, but not for a rational reason.
Incidentally, all you need for illusion is perception, not awareness, and bad form making up a weird straw-man that just because something has developed the capacity to conciousness all things can.
@TurielD Haha. You materialists sure knows how to play with words! awareness, perception, call it what you want. No amount of mechanical complexity is going to give it to you. A complex machine cannot be conscious, because non of its parts are conscious. Where is this consciousness going to come from? What precisely generates it? Oh, and one more thing. Free will does NOT follow the laws of physics, otherwise it is not free will. And if you deny free will, you deny empirical observation.
@sunzoo1 The idiot is the guy who resort to ad hominem attacks, not the guy who is arguing his point. You materialists like to convince yourself that materialism is true by calling everyone who argues against it an idiot.
@tellnet Nope. That is what you materialists are saying. You are saying that consciousness is an illusion created by mechanical and chemical processes in the brain, but that is preposterous: chemistry does not produce awareness. If materialism is true, then we should've been mindless robots, yes. The fact that we're not, is powerful evidence that there is more to reality than just the material world. It is you who are denying this reality, not me.
@tellnet Oh good grief. If you break the keyboard, a user can no longer provide input to the computer. It does not mean the keyboard IS the user! The brain acts in much the same way as a keyboard for the soul.
As for the claim that NDE is hallucinatory phenomenon, that is materialist bullshit! People who have NDE can sometimes account for everything that happened around them while they were "dead", which could be verified by those who were present. That is hardly a "hallucination"
@Hannodb1961 Awareness and perception are not the same thing, in fact Chalmers's 'easy' problem of conciousness deals with how we integrate the things our senses perceive into some kind of meaningful awareness. Though illusions are still an interesting point: you can fool a chimp with one, does that make a chimp concious?
The claim about not finding a conciousness centre is rather silly don't you think? "This rocket can't go to the moon, because none of its parts contain 'goingtothemoonness'!"
@Hannodb1961 Free will is even more interesting! If you are right and free will does not follow the laws of physics then that's easily provable. We merely need to observe the actions of all the parts of the brain, to wait and see where this action contrary to the laws of physics occurs. Complicated and time-consuming certainly, but quite possible. So far though nothing unnatural has shown itself.
BTW, free will has not been empirically proven, it may indeed be an illusion as of a philo zombie...
@TurielD The existence of free will is self evident to all who possesses it, and is in no need of proof. The burden of proof falls to the materialists who claim that this attribute of human nature is simply an illusion, as this assertion is made to preserve the materialist paradigm, rather than from empirical observation. Therefore, unless the materialist can proof his assertion that free will is an illusion, its very existence falsifies the materialist paradigm.
You can make up all kind of fancy words like creationism or intelligent design but what it all boils down to is still that they believe a bearded man molded lumps of clay together 6000 years ago to create man.
I have a fancy word for that belief.... stupidity!
@The1VoiceOfReason not the point. Even if they did fabricate the Bible, it's dishonest to try to refute their position by making up what they believe. If you are against them don't use their means to argue against them. They don't actually believe that a bearded man molded clay together 6000 years ago to create man. Even if some do, that's not an accurate representation of ID. Attack ID by the definition that they give.
@empreme Intelligent Design is a fraud and a scam rejected by the scientific community that is explicitly vague because the underlying fundemental argument behind the smoke & mirrors is a skygod making men out of clay. Putting a fancy name on a jewish myth that even a child would have trouble believing (unless it was brainwashed from an early age) is not science by any means. Christian science is also known for claiming the rings around saturn was Jesus foreskin. Quite a track record!
"Richard Dawkins Beautifully Responds to William Lane Craig" Yes indeed. I agree, Dawkins does have a beautiful voice. It's a pity that he only uses it to strike down his own deluded strawman arguments. As John Lennox once told him: "I know you hate to be told that no one believes in the god which you don't believe in." But, that did not seem to stop him. It seems Dawkins is so in love with his own soothing voice, he has difficulty hearing anyone but himself.
@Hannodb1961 I think he presented an excellent representation of the silliness of insinuating that atheists lack meaning, purpose, emotions, or passion in life. In that respect- that of the video- I would say he responded quite beautifully.
@ItsEasyIfYouThink That is not OUR claim, that is HIS claim: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." And the very fact that you DO experience meaning, purpose, emotions, or passion in life is the most powerful evidence for the absurdity of the materialist's claims that everything can be reduced to meaningless material processes.
@Hannodb1961 Hmmm... so what you're saying is that because I can "feel" like I'm invinsible, it's "the most powerful evidence" that I am, in fact, invinsible? Or what about feeling alone? Is that then powerful evidence that isolation is intrinsic to this world? Feelings have to be "felt" through your senses, go to your brain, and then be understood. Think about how much hardware the signals of "feeling" must go through before our societally-altered brains "understand" them. Secondly
@ItsEasyIfYouThink The idea that the arangement of the dead atomic particles in your brain can somehow magically generate awareness, free will and feelings is preposterous. They're all unaware of their surroundings, and subject to the laws of physics. Moreover, there are testimony of people who has been clinically dead, but when they were revived, they could accurately describe the events when they were dead. Absolute materialism is an absurd form of self denial.
@ItsEasyIfYouThink If materialism were true, you SHOULD have been a mindless machine, blindly and slavishly following the laws of physics, unaware of your own existence. My favorite quote is Stephen Pinker who claims: "Consciousness is an illusion". But, in order to have illusions about anything, you first need to be conscious, so consciousness itself can't be an illusion. Or are we suppose to believe the rock is having delusions about being Captain Kirk of the star ship enterprise?
@Hannodb1961 Interesting... Why do you say that matter forming into something which is self aware is "preposterous"? It's preposterous that memories can be destroyed by being involved in a car accident, and that hits on the head can change your personality; even your vocal accent. These things are all tied to the brain, which, although so damn complex that we yet do not understand it in it's entirety, know enough about to say in confidence that "free will" and "consciousness" are...
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Again. You simply assert that dead material can become "aware" simply because of the structure it has. If an atom is dead and unaware, it does not matter what arrangement the atoms have around it, it remains dead and unaware. Mechanical processes can produce mechanical effects, but consciousness is not mechanical.
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Let me try and put is another way: Materialists often claim that one day computers will be powerful enough to become self aware. In other words, they seem to think that consciousness is a byproduct of processing power. So, lets go to the basics: Computer process information using switches. 1 bit = 1 on/off switch. One switch produces 0 consciousness. 1 000 000 000 switches still produces 0 consciousness, because anything times 0 is 0.
@ItsEasyIfYouThink The brain is purely the interface between the soul and the material world. As such, it makes sense that if you damage it, you damage the souls ability to interact with the body. And there is lots of evidence that this dualism exists. For instance, there is a book "The Spiritual brain - a neuro scientists case for the existence of the soul".
@ItsEasyIfYouThink "Just extremely complex interactions between 'dead atomic particles'" - and why should any amount of complex interactions produce a collective self-awareness between those atoms? If this were true, you should've been a dead, mindless machine. "He means that reality is not as it appears to us" - Which is exactly what an illusion is. Why should we even have a concept of reality and ourselves?As I said, materialism is self denial,which makes it the most irrational believe system
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Everything the body does is mechanical, and can be explained by mechanical processes, EXCEPT the mind. The mind is aware of itself, and yet it cannot be pinned down to any particular part of the brain. The mind can act with free will, which defies the deterministic laws of physics. The mind can produce new information, something which no other natural process can do. Cases where the mind left the body in NDE was confirmed by doctors. Materialism fails to account for this.
@Hannodb1961 The mind doesn't produce new information. It only connects what is already there. The mind is not aware of itself except through ideas of what 'it' is.
And the mind can be PHYSICALLY damaged and incapacitated - through accident or illness.
How does this reconcile with your ethereal concept that presumes a disassociated "soul" that is capable of rising from a dead body with a defective brain - to magically arrive intact in LaLaLand ?
NDE is a physical hallucinatory phenomenon which has the semblance of religiosity for the deluded and the demented.
@Hannodb1961 subject to the brain and it's purely material processes. Also, as a side note, there is no difference between "dead atomic particles" and us. There's no such thing as "life", as society sees it. There's no "spark of life" that makes things alive. Just extremely complex interactions between "dead atomic particles". Ask any biologist who understands the activities and proteins in cells. Also, "illusion" is not literal. He means that reality is not as it appears to us...
@Hannodb1961 as humans. Rocks don't have delusions about being Captain Kirk because they don't have atomic structures for thought. Just because we have misconceptions about the way we think, especially concerning "free will", this does not free us from "dead atomic particles". Consider, for example, if free will was only apparently in existence; that it only seemed as if you had free will, because of your brain. How would you know it wasn't just instinct that "feels" free?
@Hannodb1961 The things that give humans meaning are entirely arbitrary. Doing hard work can make me "feel" like I have meaning. Or writing childrens books. Or hot-wiring a car. Or following a creed, or religion. Or fighting for a cause. These "purposeful, meaningful" things are obviously self-imposed and vary widely anad expectantly from person to person. To say that passion begets an intrinsically passionate universe is to forget that we occupy a single planet among 100 billion.
LMAOOOOO HOW STUPID CAN ATHEIST PPL BE......SIR THIS IS NOT A DEBATE WHERE IN UR DUMB ATHESIT MIND MAKES U THINK THIS IS A DEBATE OMG FAIL DO YOURSELF A FAVOR A DELETE THIS VIDEO EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THIS EVEN ATHEIST WEBSITE ARE CALLING DAWKINGS A COWARD LMAOO WHATA FAIL
The sole duty of man is to white wash minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind will be more easily digestible for Yahweh, Jesus, and all the holy demons of Asgard.
The sole duty of man is to white wash minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind will be more easily digestible for Yahweh, Jesus, and all the holy demons of Asgard.
The sole duty of man is to white wash minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind will be more easily digestible for Yahweh, Jesus, and all the holy demons of Asgard.
The sole duty of man is to white wash their minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind can be more easily digested by Yahweh, Jesus, and all the demons of Asgard.
He's absolutely right that it's a very typical response from theists that humanity loses all purpose and value if there is no god -- and it's absurd to me. Giving a god credit for every human quality does exactly what they oppose; take all credit away from us and make us puppets. Rather than thanking a god for your achievements and help from others, thank and appreciate yourself and the friend who came to your aid. We humans are greater than any gods, for we are the ones who dreamed them up.
Time and time again he tells them that the universe does not owe you anything. They continue to think that it does and therefor god exists. How this very simple point continually falls on deaf ears defies all reason.
Check out my videos "Religion is ridiculous" (Specifically Christianity)..good stuff...rate it! Christians i CHALLENGE you to watch and have an open mind....Anti-theists watch and give the vids a thumbs up!!
Thunderf00t showed it best: Professor Dawkins has more citations on his most popular article than William obtained in his entire career. I am slightly curious as to William's private life. I wonder what his dark shadows are. Like does he do drugs or buys gay prostitutes to help take the edge off his Christian persona? I can't imagine the level of pent-up frustration a guy that's been promoting bullshit for 62 years must have.
dawkins is scared if not he would have a fully dabate not a conversation that each persons had a couple mins to respond to the other dawkins doesnt debate craig cause he is completely ignorant on the subject he doesnt support and he knows it
CDUTT360 23 hours ago
It seems that Dawkins is the one getting emotional here.
TH3B3A57 2 days ago
Dawkins' response was a rhetorically powerful combination of strawmen and unimpressive analysis. If one ever needed a demonstration that robust scientific credentials need not translate into philosophical acumen, one need only watch Dawkins debate.
AvadaKedavra1138 3 days ago
William Lane Craig's arguements are a fucking joke, one of his arguements is, "There is a possibility God exists, therefore God exists". I'm not even fucking joking, he actually said that during this debate, amazing how some people can't see how illogical they are.
MegaBlueZOMBIE 4 days ago
@MegaBlueZOMBIE It's illogical only if you pretend there weren't other components. The argument Craig is trying to make is a permutation of the ontological argument, but one which avoids the "existence isn't a predicate" objection.
AvadaKedavra1138 3 days ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 That is a direct quote from WLC if you watched the full debate..All of his arguements are illogical, especially since he believes in a SPECIFIC God(yahweh). He puts his beliefs in front of logic, as do most believers, you could make a strong arguement for believing in A God, but believing in a specific God just because you were raised that way by your parents and raised in that culture is absolutely rediculous since there is equally no proof for any.
MegaBlueZOMBIE 3 days ago
richard dawkins is simply wrong about what craig preaches. anyone with a philisophical mind and who watched the debate will realize how ignorant, not stupid, richard dawkins is.
bassbass99able 2 days ago
Science always > Philosophy, so debating creationists/apologists is moot.
Dennissays 6 days ago
I have a hard time taking either seriously in the ring. I wonder whose idea that was.
Azmodan6 6 days ago
I want to skip ahead to the part where Andre the Giant comes out...???
gram440a 1 week ago
the fact that a silly child like Craig is on the same stage with Dawkins is just ridiculous
funcpl2741054 1 week ago
@funcpl2741054 In a debate about a matter of philosophy? Only one of those two actually has philosophical training, and it isn't Dawkins.
AvadaKedavra1138 3 days ago
Watch the famous Craig /HItchens debate 2009 and at the end Craig can barely speak or after his summary get back to his chair without falling to his knees . Looked as though Prof Craig was on the verge of a nervous breakdown , lol....and Hitchens was being gentle with him too.
Treadlightlyful 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Treadlightlyful Yet it's Hitchens the one that yields his last 5 minutes. It is also Hitch the one that "comes undone" during the Q&A period with Craig. Talk about barely speaking, eh?
crlsjvrm 1 week ago
Comment removed
1ConfusedKorean 1 week ago
Religion is toxic. Knowledge is power. Peace
EattherichBuddy 1 week ago
"What is the colour of jealousy?" is a silly question? Where did Dawkins come up with that one? Are all questions silly if you truly believe Everything came from Nothingness and will eventually return to Nothingness? And by the way, all Atheists, in private-- at least subconsciously-- must borrow the Theistic belief that there is some form of existence after death, otherwise, they would have no real reason to live. Or maybe they aren't bothered by their Nihilism, and can just... get on with It.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 1 week ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y I really really sincerely believe that death is final, and there is only blackness. Can you remember before you were born? There was nothingness then. Death is probably the same thing. My reasons to live are my friends, my family, and my hobbies. The fact that YOU can't live without an afterlife, does not stop me or any other professing atheist to do so. I'm sometimes depressed, but I think we all are some point in our lives, without it meaning much.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y Yes it is a silly question, that's the point.
Not all questions. And please point out the part in the BB theory where it says everything came from nothing.
I imagine death as trying to remember the period before birth.
I would like to believe in some form of afterlife, and who knows, maybe our conciousness lives on, but it's wishful thinking. No point if there is no afterlife? That is naive. What is the point of the life form GFA-J1? We exist because we exist.
MegaLolburger 1 week ago
@MegaLolburger "No point if there is no afterlife? That is naive".
While it's true that someone can have some type of individual purpose in life such as "Preserving the peace", life as a whole truly is meaningless if there is no afterlife. "We exist because we exist" is not an answer to why we exist. That's like saying "I eat food because I eat food". It's not a real answer, just a jog around it.
MJM3210 1 week ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y You obviously are a moron who hasn't looked up any arguments for atheism. Some believe the universe always existed and some believe in mix of multiverse theory which you don't even know about. So tell me do Christians believe God came from nothing or always existed? That is even more silly to believe an omnipotent being could even exist.
TheSaintsrow3rd 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why is the universe the way it is?" Easy. Because physics. Done.
FHomeBrew 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
now that im seeing this full video... NO WONDER dawkins has better things to do than debate a professional debater! I mean, look at the arena. The microphone is set up inside a mock boxing ring. It suggests that the whole point of this is just fighting. Rather than truley understand and value what we are debating about. I heard that Craigs last debate that dawkins didnt show for, craig set out an empty chair to showcase dawkins "cowardliness". It's rediculous if you ask me.
trashbash2001 2 weeks ago
All dislikes from fanatical theist followers of Craig. Easy to buy into his word weaving that has no actual substance behind it.
DeathBringer769 2 weeks ago
For a second I thought he said "a fantastic swelling of the breasts" at 1:30
WolfgangBrozart 2 weeks ago
@WolfgangBrozart I think he actually did, as in a deep intake of breath swelling the chest in awe, kind of thing. He talks in an almost classical English, like if Richard use the word "gay" he would probably mean it as "happy".
Thirst4Facts 2 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins is dumb, stupid, retarded, illogical, and an irrational fucktard.
BronyEditor 2 weeks ago
Too bad dawkins won't debate craig. would be fun to watch.
Povidius 3 weeks ago
I hadn't heard the final argument about certain questions not being worth answering before. A good and important point.
DeadEyeJack 3 weeks ago
He talks on his iPhone, he watches his tv, he takes potentially life saving medicines,......if science got these things so wrong then quite obviously the same science has missed the mark with evolution. People like Craig will always struggle. His reluctance to seek the truth is irresponsible.
Leehamism 3 weeks ago 2
@Leehamism Actually William Lane Craig accepts evolution and the big bang.I am an atheist too and I think many of his argumants are false but I'm just saying...
denispkpk 5 days ago
Dawkins answers it perfectly in his first sentence. It's an emotional response to the brutal reality of the universe. Humans are emotional creatures, who love those close to them and fear pain, suffering and death. So it's only natural that they would turn to god or some sort of supernatural explanation to comfort them. Hey to each his/her own. If it makes you feel better and gives you comfort then so be it, as for me I seek the truth.
tonydorsett33 3 weeks ago
Am I the only one who thinks that this whole video is an appeal to emotion?
P.S. they never said that atheists have no purpose. They said that they cannot justify their purpose from an objective standpoint.
NickoliLion 3 weeks ago
@NickoliLion
"they never said that atheists have no purpose. They said that they cannot justify their purpose from an objective standpoint"
Not much difference really. Craig is saying that whatever purpose the nonbeliever thinks he has is an illusion.
citizenghosttown 3 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Yeah but neither can Christians. If you want to go down that line of reasoning then nothing can be objectively proven since all experience is ultimately subjective.
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@megamarsvin
That depends on what philosophy you adhere to.
Only a materialist would argue that all knowledge is based on sensory experience and that because of that, absolutes cannot exist, (except for the absolute that absolutes cannot exist).
But, a rationalist would say that all knowledge already exists in the mind and that you may know anything simply by following a simple reasoning process.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion But a rationalist would also want some form of evidence to support his reasoning. He wouldn't jump to conclusions about divine intervention just because something occurred that he didn't quite understand would he? How do you propose to reason without experience or evidence?
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@megamarsvin Of course they would need evidence. However, they believe that you don't necessarily need physical evidence because mental or logical evidence is all you need. Rationalist don't necessarily believe in some sort of a god (although many of them do).
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Can you define 'mental evidence' for me? Does it sound much like the average theist's argument, i.e. "I don't understand some things so God must be responsible?"
Perhaps I am too much of a materialist I've just never been able to follow such a line of reasoning. The reason I believe external evidence is necessary is that it's too easy for the brain to deceive itself, in fact I believe it may be one of its primary survival mechanisms.
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@megamarsvin What I mean by "mental evidence" is evidence that you discover through philosophical thought.
Rationalism and idealism were developed by group of mostly deists and pantheists
during the 17th century.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Thought experiments are great and very useful but I don't know how they can be evidence of anything without objective evidence. In fact in my experience among theists and even deists it tends to end in statements like "Life is so complex, it can only have been created by a God" which are not rational arguments in my view.
Can you give me an example of a piece of 'logical evidence' for the existence a God (just an example of what such a line of reasoning might be?)
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@megamarsvin Well, being a angostical theist myself, I couldn't give you one that I fully agree with. However, if you wanted an example you could listen to a little of C.S. Lewis. He always enjoyed giving logical arguments for the existence of a god.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion I'm familiar with (some) of Lewis' work on the subject. While interesting I don't find his arguments very convincing. For their time I'm sure they were very advanced thoughts but looking at them today they seem to fall back on the classic arguments: Why morality if there's no God, why such precise laws of physics, what motivates the universe?
They are valid questions of course, but my question would be: Why presume a God? Or maybe rather: What do you mean by "God"?
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
Have the question "Why is the universe the way it is?" been asked for real, waiting for an answer, in a debate by an adult man?!
ExtrackterYT 3 weeks ago
Asking 'What is the color of jealousy?' is the same as asking: 'Why is the universe the way it is?' What a moronic thing to say. If the question: 'Why is the universe the way it is?' was never pondered in human thought or asked in human speech or ventured into in human endeavor, then we would not have fields in Astrophysics or Cosmology today. 'Richard Dawkins Beautifully Responds to William Lane Craig' ??? Surely not in this clip. Me thinks he should have debated him back in October 2011.
TruthLover555 3 weeks ago
@TruthLover555
"Why is the Universe the way it is" isn't the question that Dawkins was criticizing.
As Dawkins himself has explained, that's the very question that science is committed to answering.
citizenghosttown 3 weeks ago
@TruthLover555 That wasn't the question, the question was "does the universe have purpose?" The theists claim it does because God created and gave it meaning. Well, where is their proof? They did not provide a single shred of evidence to support their claims. All they did was spew out poetic nonsense in an attempt to play off the emotions of the audience. When you accomplish that, you no longer need to use logic or reason in your argument. The atheists were addressing the question, the
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoCk4LiFe90
"The theists claim it does because God created and gave it meaning. "
Which would then bring us to the next question: why would there be a god? Where would this god get its purpose from, in turn? Yet another god?
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@TruthLover555 creationists were dodging the question and addressing the audience in a hope to sway them by feeding off their emotions.
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins got owned in the debate, he did answer the question dawkins just didn't understand how he answered it.
stewaaaad 4 weeks ago
@stewaaaad With your level of intelligence I'm surprised you even know what a computer is.
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 Shut up you fat white boy, that phrase is from the fucking 90s if you want to base a comment on how smart I am. Maybe you're the dumb one. You're so pathetic, I'll be surprised if you figure out how to respond to this comment.
stewaaaad 3 weeks ago
i know Dawkins is correct, but i still dislike the man
thuggie1 1 month ago
@thuggie1 You shouldn't, he's right and hes significantly or more like immensily smarter than Craig, if you look closely and craigs arguments and dawkins you will realise that Craig has nothing to back it up
Dawkins- has answer for about 95% of what he claims and it has been proven by evidence to be true
Craig-Well we already know how everything began(big bang) and there is atom, earth is billions of years old though he still believes in bible literally(means agreed with everything it says).
Mindaugas7100 4 weeks ago
@Mindaugas7100 therefore craig is deluded and already automatically lose the argument because on scientific point of view he agree with Dawkins while on personal belief he follows the bible which is non evidencial in any way and have nothing to back it up.
My point is that Dawkins doesn't debate him because Craig refutes Evolution and real cause of everything which happens in the universe which also was proven.
Mindaugas7100 4 weeks ago
@Mindaugas7100 i am not saying he is wrong. i mean if we all thought like most creationists we would think that bad smells coursed illness and plants eat soil. and a cut could mean death by septicemia.
i don't know what it is i just find him creepy
thuggie1 4 weeks ago
@thuggie1 If you would like, i would send you a video his FULL explanation why he doesn't belief in god, why it's very improbable etc and all of these reason all rational. He also even states that he cannot say that god doesn't exist in scale 1-7 he said 6 because it will probably be impossible to prove whether he/she exist or not.
Mindaugas7100 4 weeks ago
why do creationists always ask the question "well,why are we here then?what is the point of the universe?" for fuck sake we dont know!!but niether DO YOU!!!! they act all smugg like they have the answer!!the basis for having this answer?because a book written thousands of years ago by acient people who didnt know any better!i mean REALLY???no evidence that the book is genuine WHATSOEVER! and u think u have the answers?ur answer is as valid as any tribes ppl have today with their gods,amazing....
reeceyhiggs 1 month ago
@reeceyhiggs Exactly, and Dawkins calls them out on this. He said something along the lines of, "scientists don't claim to have all the answers for why there is a universe is, that is what science is trying to figure out . . . just because science can't answer it yet, what on Earth makes religion think they have the answers." That may not be verbatim but he did address the creationists on that point and rightly so. There is no reason to believe religion can answer what science can't.
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 well, but at the same time its an invalid "silly" question ? that doesnt go well together (or maybe only in an Atheists head?)
MBsaturnus 3 weeks ago
what could be a more beautiful way to end? we were birthed from stars and, in the end, we will shall return to the stars as stardust.
if you ask me, that's a much more beautiful way to look at death and the end than saying some of you get to go to a perfect place for all eternity, but those that weren't so lucky get to spend an eternity in fire with some guy w/ a pitchfork...
Vroom246 1 month ago 34
@Vroom246
What's so beautiful about that? That stars have a romantic meaning in our culture?
It doesn't matter whether you (or the stuff your body was for a very short time made of) will become stardust or whatever when Dawkins is right & you'll loose any kind of consciousness once you're dead. As anything you ever did or experienced won't matter.
mawa89g 3 weeks ago
@mawa89g our existence and experience won't matter? sure mattered to me. and i'm sure to billions of other people, many of whom are probably not religious. you're saying that b/c humans, one of the billions of species that existed on this tiny rock in some average galaxy in the middle of nowhere, disappears, the universe itself would lose meaning? just b/c we have nothing awaiting us after death, doesn't mean our existence now in this universe doesn't matter.
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@Vroom246
" the universe itself would lose meaning"
What meaning? It wouldn't have an meaning at all..a huge emptiness expanding into nowhere, with stars which will be burned out someday.
How does your existence matter if this life is all there is? It doesn't matter if you die now or in 80 years, if you life a perfect life or as a Hitler. That won't change the slightest bit. Once you're dead, you'll lose any consciousness. And you can't escape that. How could there be a meaning?
mawa89g 2 weeks ago
@mawa89g Do you have family? Do you have friends? Do you have goals and desires, do you want children?
Are you saying if there's no afterlife all those things become meaningless?
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@megamarsvin
"there's no afterlife all those things become meaningless"
Would they have any meaning in the first place? Some more complex forms of proteins walking around...and all will be extinguished some day anyways. I'd lose all consciousness once I'm dead, and this day will come. And as soon as that's the case, it wouldn't have mattered what I did or experienced.
mawa89g 2 weeks ago
@mawa89g Why not? Your children wouldn't remember you? Your family wouldn't mourn you? If you did anything in your life to help and improve others, they would not miss you?
It sounds very selfish to me to say "if I don't live forever, why would I care about anything?"
megamarsvin 2 weeks ago
@mawa89g you misused my words. you're saying if there wasn't some thousand yr old book written by humans, an insignificant species on a tiny rock, the universe would have no meaning. life is meaning enough for us. just b/c their isn't some greater being giving us and the universe greater meaning doesn't mean that our lives aren't meaningless. you don't need to be afraid of the nothingness. as i said earlier, if you really look at it, it's beautiful.
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vroom
" you're saying if there wasn't some thousand yr old book(...), the universe would have no meaning."
Ah, don't make it so simple for you. If there was no God, nothing after our life, if we'd just be extinguished, then life would have no meaning. Afaik also Dawkins basically said that. No purpose, pitiless indifference...
I don't see how "nothingness" could be beautiful. You can't experience beauty if you just are "away".
If so, meaning IS an illusion, how couldn't it be.
mawa89g 2 weeks ago
@mawa89g why do you need an AFTERlife for LIFE to have meaning? don't listen to craig prancing around saying atheists only have "illusory" meaning. It's real b/c it's real to us. The universe doesn't need a grand purpose for each of us to purpose.
And don't be scared of the "nothingness", you don't need to be there to realize the ultimate ending for all of us. Would you seriously rather have billions go to "hell" while a select few get to go to "heaven"? doesn't sound beautiful to me...
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@mawa89g btw, did you bother watching carl sagan's the pale blue dot, yet? it's seriously worth watching. maybe it'll change your view of things. you don't need a god, an afterlife, or any of that for life to have meaning. those meanings are illusory and conceited. life itself is the meaning of life, not gathering points for an afterlife.
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@mawa89g you should watch carl sagan's the blue dot. it's truly humbling. you will realize how insignificant our existence and our planet's existence is, but at the same time, every human has lived out their lives on this tiny rock. everyone you've ever loved, hated, envied, admired lived here. it's not illusory, as craig likes to parade around. there's nothing wrong with believing life is all there is. it's much better than saving up your chips for some medieval afterlife myth.
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@Vroom246 Sounds like Buddhism to me.
NickoliLion 3 weeks ago
@NickoliLion lol why do you think einstein liked buddhism? it's not cruel or divisive like other religions. the buddha speaks nothing about afterlife or any higher power, except dharma, which is basically the universe itself. so you can see how science and buddhism can be quite complimentary and why many great minds saw it as one of the few "cosmic" beliefs.
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@Vroom246 suck my fucken arse out
HalfEatenDimSim 2 weeks ago
@HalfEatenDimSim lol just keep making shit videos and stay out of intelligent conversations. or better yet, take yourself out of the gene pool lol
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@Vroom246 Buddhism is the 'religion' for many atheists. In a nutshell, it doesn't demand anything from you, or tells you that you are unworthy. It is a guideline to finding (your own) truth and it's a pathway to true happiness, achievable in this life. It tells you to think for yourself, don't just accept anything and wander off in delusion, even if it comes from Buddha himself. If you look up some quotes from Buddha, I think it is something most atheists could relate to.
OhReallyNoWai 2 weeks ago
@OhReallyNoWai totally agree!
Vroom246 2 weeks ago
@Vroom246 If heat death really is true, it seems fair to say that eventually matter may end up in a singularity again.
HaloZero147 1 week ago
@Vroom246 So you're saying we're pointless dead matter with no reason why..
What about a God that breathed life into you so that you may know love?
You can make anything sound beautiful with the right words.
ThisMemory 3 days ago
I don't think it's a silly question at all, but craig's answers and his reasons for his answers to it are pretty silly. I think dawkin's left himself open for a fair attack with that statement he could have destroyed craig's arguments more effectively.
TheAlphaPyro 1 month ago
"It is a silly question", oh Dawikns, you so great.
popsilol 1 month ago
You know, I just want to say how nice it is that there can be a reasoned and mostly civil discussion here on a subjects which are notorious for stirring up negativity and emotionally laden ad hominem.
It's a pleasure speaking with you guys :)
TurielD 1 month ago 2
If love is an emotion, which Dawkins cannot deny that it is, then the caveats levelled at the atheists is the rational thing to do. What motivates a parent to warn his child against the dangers of drugs. Is it love, compassion? It must be because his child's drug abuse is the thing that stirs these intense emotions in his spirit. How much more should the atheists' collision course with God not provoke Christians to intense emotions of love and compassion? To love is to be rational.
lessingtom 1 month ago
@lessingtom Is it really though? Think of the other emotions you can have, fear, joy, surprise etc. These are fleeting, immediate things in response to stimuli. Love is more akin to (depending on perspective) a fundamental drive - i.e. the mechanism behind our urge to care for the people around us - or it is an act of altruism, freely given to support another individual, wanting what's best for them irrespective of yourself.
Both drives and altruism are well established evolutionarily.
TurielD 1 month ago
@TurielD Awareness, Perception, Illusions, they have all one thing in common: You need to be conscious in order to be able to do it. A robot is not aware, it does not perceive, and it does not have illusions. It simply does what its mechanical parts makes it do.Just because it moves or makes sounds,does not mean that it is aware of its surroundings and own existence.Processing data does not create awareness,because its just moving parts.Comparing consciousness to rockets is a category mistake.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 It's only a category mistake if we accept your premise that conciousness is some kind of special case beyond other physical processes, I do not. If I mistake your meaning, what other things might fall in the 'conciousness' category?
As to needing conciousness to do those things, well, that's an assertion. I desire proof. If I fool a robot with an illusion, is it concious? Show me a reason to believe that conciousness is somehow beyond the physical. I won't assume it.
TurielD 1 month ago
@TurielD We might not know what exactly the soul is and how consciousness works, but we do know what it is not. You can choose to doubt this, but I feel the burden of proof falls to you if you claim consciousness can be generated by moving parts. A robot is unconscious, because its builder knows that he didn't provide it with anything that makes it conscious, even though its program might make it appear otherwise. And I already told you of people who have verifiable out of body experiences.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@TurielD
With due respect. Was it merely your hands that typed your well articulated response to Hannodb1961 or was it something more than a merely physical response? If, as you say, consciousness is not something beyond the physical, then your hands are regulating and dominating your entire life. I sincerely doubt that they are. Your response is far too intelligent for it to be a mere physical/motorized one.
lessingtom 1 month ago
@TurielD Basically,your task is to explain how several parts, all of which is unconscious, can become aware of its collective existence when it moves in a certain way relative to each other. This is the basic proposition of materialism which I find preposterous. Consciousness is not a function of chemistry or machinery. It is awareness. If you state that all matter is aware to some degree, like the New Agers does, then this can make some sense. But the materialist proposition just doesn't add up
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@TurielD
Exactly! Love is the driving force behind the urge to care for other people and that is precisely why God's Son become a man to save those who want to be saved. God sent his Son to seek and to save the lost. That must be real love.
lessingtom 1 month ago
@TurielD
For love to be love it must have constantly been the same emotional experience throughout the ages. It could never have been something that first had a primeval state of existence and then developed into something more advanced. Love is love.
lessingtom 1 month ago
@lessingtom
Is this the old: "love didn't develop + lower forms of life don't experience it => higher forms of life didn't develop from lower forms of life => no evolution => creation => god" ?
Because you forgot to say why love could never have been something that first had a primeval state of existence and then developed into something more advanced
BTW "Love is love" is not an answer, it may sound 'deep and meaningful' but actually says nothing at all
shumble32 1 month ago 7
@shumble32
"Love is love" was not intended to be an answer to any particular question. It is a statement that love has never evolved from a lower, primitive, primeval kind of love to a higher, more sophisticated and advanced kind. Love has always been love.
lessingtom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lessingtom - and your whole argument rests on the fact that "love has never evolved from a lower, primitive, primeval kind of love" yet you shy away from giving any justification for that belief - why is that?
shumble32 1 month ago
Rationality does not require the absence of emotion - unless one's aim is to be a sociopath.
tamething1 1 month ago
lol dawkins must not be a synesthete. "what is the color of jealousy?" is a question that makes perfect sense to me...
regardless, brilliant answer by dawkins.
Qzzth4 1 month ago
@Qzzth4 I think he means *objectively*. Ask two synesthetes, you'll get two different answers.
nathan87 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 are you under the impression that anything in our world does not follow the laws of physics? All things do, including our brains. What is there preventing a sufficiently complex machine from having a form of conciousness? You find it preposterous, very well, but not for a rational reason.
Incidentally, all you need for illusion is perception, not awareness, and bad form making up a weird straw-man that just because something has developed the capacity to conciousness all things can.
TurielD 1 month ago
@TurielD Haha. You materialists sure knows how to play with words! awareness, perception, call it what you want. No amount of mechanical complexity is going to give it to you. A complex machine cannot be conscious, because non of its parts are conscious. Where is this consciousness going to come from? What precisely generates it? Oh, and one more thing. Free will does NOT follow the laws of physics, otherwise it is not free will. And if you deny free will, you deny empirical observation.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 So...you're basically saying that you're an idiot...You didn't have to write a paragraph to say that!
sunzoo1 1 month ago
@sunzoo1 The idiot is the guy who resort to ad hominem attacks, not the guy who is arguing his point. You materialists like to convince yourself that materialism is true by calling everyone who argues against it an idiot.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 You aren't arguing, you're spewing stupidity.
sunzoo1 1 month ago
@sunzoo1 ...says the lazy mind.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961
And..
So...
Obviously you are trying to say that YOU are unconscious...
Sounds about right.
tellnet 1 month ago
@tellnet Nope. That is what you materialists are saying. You are saying that consciousness is an illusion created by mechanical and chemical processes in the brain, but that is preposterous: chemistry does not produce awareness. If materialism is true, then we should've been mindless robots, yes. The fact that we're not, is powerful evidence that there is more to reality than just the material world. It is you who are denying this reality, not me.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@tellnet Oh good grief. If you break the keyboard, a user can no longer provide input to the computer. It does not mean the keyboard IS the user! The brain acts in much the same way as a keyboard for the soul.
As for the claim that NDE is hallucinatory phenomenon, that is materialist bullshit! People who have NDE can sometimes account for everything that happened around them while they were "dead", which could be verified by those who were present. That is hardly a "hallucination"
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hannodb1961
as @sunzoo1 quite properly said below:
"So...you're basically saying that you're an idiot...You didn't have to write a paragraph to say that!"
Just to add my observation - why reinforce the obvious with additional paragraphs ?
tellnet 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 Awareness and perception are not the same thing, in fact Chalmers's 'easy' problem of conciousness deals with how we integrate the things our senses perceive into some kind of meaningful awareness. Though illusions are still an interesting point: you can fool a chimp with one, does that make a chimp concious?
The claim about not finding a conciousness centre is rather silly don't you think? "This rocket can't go to the moon, because none of its parts contain 'goingtothemoonness'!"
TurielD 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 Free will is even more interesting! If you are right and free will does not follow the laws of physics then that's easily provable. We merely need to observe the actions of all the parts of the brain, to wait and see where this action contrary to the laws of physics occurs. Complicated and time-consuming certainly, but quite possible. So far though nothing unnatural has shown itself.
BTW, free will has not been empirically proven, it may indeed be an illusion as of a philo zombie...
TurielD 1 month ago
@TurielD The existence of free will is self evident to all who possesses it, and is in no need of proof. The burden of proof falls to the materialists who claim that this attribute of human nature is simply an illusion, as this assertion is made to preserve the materialist paradigm, rather than from empirical observation. Therefore, unless the materialist can proof his assertion that free will is an illusion, its very existence falsifies the materialist paradigm.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
Jealousy is green.
stormin300 1 month ago
2:12 Come on! give me something i can sophistry about.
2:16 come on DAWKS!
2:20 GOTCHA!
MrProtuber 1 month ago 15
@EnlightenedReader Don't except them to listen to reason.
empreme 1 month ago
You can make up all kind of fancy words like creationism or intelligent design but what it all boils down to is still that they believe a bearded man molded lumps of clay together 6000 years ago to create man.
I have a fancy word for that belief.... stupidity!
The1VoiceOfReason 1 month ago
@The1VoiceOfReason It's stupidity to believe you can refute a position by fabricating what they believe.
Yet you do..
empreme 1 month ago
@empreme No, they fabricated the bible u cant blame me for it.
The1VoiceOfReason 1 month ago
@The1VoiceOfReason not the point. Even if they did fabricate the Bible, it's dishonest to try to refute their position by making up what they believe. If you are against them don't use their means to argue against them. They don't actually believe that a bearded man molded clay together 6000 years ago to create man. Even if some do, that's not an accurate representation of ID. Attack ID by the definition that they give.
empreme 1 month ago
@empreme Intelligent Design is a fraud and a scam rejected by the scientific community that is explicitly vague because the underlying fundemental argument behind the smoke & mirrors is a skygod making men out of clay. Putting a fancy name on a jewish myth that even a child would have trouble believing (unless it was brainwashed from an early age) is not science by any means. Christian science is also known for claiming the rings around saturn was Jesus foreskin. Quite a track record!
The1VoiceOfReason 1 month ago
Wow. O.o
JesseQuintana 1 month ago
Your last sentence prof dawkins attacks the fundamental purpose of science entirely.
31428571J 1 month ago
Misleading title.
formerlyknownashenry 1 month ago
"Richard Dawkins Beautifully Responds to William Lane Craig" Yes indeed. I agree, Dawkins does have a beautiful voice. It's a pity that he only uses it to strike down his own deluded strawman arguments. As John Lennox once told him: "I know you hate to be told that no one believes in the god which you don't believe in." But, that did not seem to stop him. It seems Dawkins is so in love with his own soothing voice, he has difficulty hearing anyone but himself.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 I think he presented an excellent representation of the silliness of insinuating that atheists lack meaning, purpose, emotions, or passion in life. In that respect- that of the video- I would say he responded quite beautifully.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink That is not OUR claim, that is HIS claim: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." And the very fact that you DO experience meaning, purpose, emotions, or passion in life is the most powerful evidence for the absurdity of the materialist's claims that everything can be reduced to meaningless material processes.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 Hmmm... so what you're saying is that because I can "feel" like I'm invinsible, it's "the most powerful evidence" that I am, in fact, invinsible? Or what about feeling alone? Is that then powerful evidence that isolation is intrinsic to this world? Feelings have to be "felt" through your senses, go to your brain, and then be understood. Think about how much hardware the signals of "feeling" must go through before our societally-altered brains "understand" them. Secondly
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink The idea that the arangement of the dead atomic particles in your brain can somehow magically generate awareness, free will and feelings is preposterous. They're all unaware of their surroundings, and subject to the laws of physics. Moreover, there are testimony of people who has been clinically dead, but when they were revived, they could accurately describe the events when they were dead. Absolute materialism is an absurd form of self denial.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink If materialism were true, you SHOULD have been a mindless machine, blindly and slavishly following the laws of physics, unaware of your own existence. My favorite quote is Stephen Pinker who claims: "Consciousness is an illusion". But, in order to have illusions about anything, you first need to be conscious, so consciousness itself can't be an illusion. Or are we suppose to believe the rock is having delusions about being Captain Kirk of the star ship enterprise?
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 Interesting... Why do you say that matter forming into something which is self aware is "preposterous"? It's preposterous that memories can be destroyed by being involved in a car accident, and that hits on the head can change your personality; even your vocal accent. These things are all tied to the brain, which, although so damn complex that we yet do not understand it in it's entirety, know enough about to say in confidence that "free will" and "consciousness" are...
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Again. You simply assert that dead material can become "aware" simply because of the structure it has. If an atom is dead and unaware, it does not matter what arrangement the atoms have around it, it remains dead and unaware. Mechanical processes can produce mechanical effects, but consciousness is not mechanical.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Let me try and put is another way: Materialists often claim that one day computers will be powerful enough to become self aware. In other words, they seem to think that consciousness is a byproduct of processing power. So, lets go to the basics: Computer process information using switches. 1 bit = 1 on/off switch. One switch produces 0 consciousness. 1 000 000 000 switches still produces 0 consciousness, because anything times 0 is 0.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink The brain is purely the interface between the soul and the material world. As such, it makes sense that if you damage it, you damage the souls ability to interact with the body. And there is lots of evidence that this dualism exists. For instance, there is a book "The Spiritual brain - a neuro scientists case for the existence of the soul".
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink "Just extremely complex interactions between 'dead atomic particles'" - and why should any amount of complex interactions produce a collective self-awareness between those atoms? If this were true, you should've been a dead, mindless machine. "He means that reality is not as it appears to us" - Which is exactly what an illusion is. Why should we even have a concept of reality and ourselves?As I said, materialism is self denial,which makes it the most irrational believe system
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Everything the body does is mechanical, and can be explained by mechanical processes, EXCEPT the mind. The mind is aware of itself, and yet it cannot be pinned down to any particular part of the brain. The mind can act with free will, which defies the deterministic laws of physics. The mind can produce new information, something which no other natural process can do. Cases where the mind left the body in NDE was confirmed by doctors. Materialism fails to account for this.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 The mind doesn't produce new information. It only connects what is already there. The mind is not aware of itself except through ideas of what 'it' is.
sunzoo1 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961
Ehhh...
And the mind can be PHYSICALLY damaged and incapacitated - through accident or illness.
How does this reconcile with your ethereal concept that presumes a disassociated "soul" that is capable of rising from a dead body with a defective brain - to magically arrive intact in LaLaLand ?
NDE is a physical hallucinatory phenomenon which has the semblance of religiosity for the deluded and the demented.
tellnet 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 subject to the brain and it's purely material processes. Also, as a side note, there is no difference between "dead atomic particles" and us. There's no such thing as "life", as society sees it. There's no "spark of life" that makes things alive. Just extremely complex interactions between "dead atomic particles". Ask any biologist who understands the activities and proteins in cells. Also, "illusion" is not literal. He means that reality is not as it appears to us...
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 as humans. Rocks don't have delusions about being Captain Kirk because they don't have atomic structures for thought. Just because we have misconceptions about the way we think, especially concerning "free will", this does not free us from "dead atomic particles". Consider, for example, if free will was only apparently in existence; that it only seemed as if you had free will, because of your brain. How would you know it wasn't just instinct that "feels" free?
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 The things that give humans meaning are entirely arbitrary. Doing hard work can make me "feel" like I have meaning. Or writing childrens books. Or hot-wiring a car. Or following a creed, or religion. Or fighting for a cause. These "purposeful, meaningful" things are obviously self-imposed and vary widely anad expectantly from person to person. To say that passion begets an intrinsically passionate universe is to forget that we occupy a single planet among 100 billion.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
god bless atheism!
fabybou 1 month ago 14
@fabybou Amen!
harkinhank 1 month ago
LMAOOOOO HOW STUPID CAN ATHEIST PPL BE......SIR THIS IS NOT A DEBATE WHERE IN UR DUMB ATHESIT MIND MAKES U THINK THIS IS A DEBATE OMG FAIL DO YOURSELF A FAVOR A DELETE THIS VIDEO EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THIS EVEN ATHEIST WEBSITE ARE CALLING DAWKINGS A COWARD LMAOO WHATA FAIL
3anonymous71 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The sole duty of man is to white wash minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind will be more easily digestible for Yahweh, Jesus, and all the holy demons of Asgard.
WolfSyndrome 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The sole duty of man is to white wash minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind will be more easily digestible for Yahweh, Jesus, and all the holy demons of Asgard.
WolfSyndrome 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The sole duty of man is to white wash minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind will be more easily digestible for Yahweh, Jesus, and all the holy demons of Asgard.
WolfSyndrome 1 month ago
The sole duty of man is to white wash their minds with a need to be dominated and controlled, so when the Great Hive descends from the heavens mankind can be more easily digested by Yahweh, Jesus, and all the demons of Asgard.
WolfSyndrome 1 month ago
He's absolutely right that it's a very typical response from theists that humanity loses all purpose and value if there is no god -- and it's absurd to me. Giving a god credit for every human quality does exactly what they oppose; take all credit away from us and make us puppets. Rather than thanking a god for your achievements and help from others, thank and appreciate yourself and the friend who came to your aid. We humans are greater than any gods, for we are the ones who dreamed them up.
bongolongo 1 month ago
A wonderful appeal to emotion by Mr Dawkins. And to think he claims to be "rational"!!!
The1066Al 1 month ago
Time and time again he tells them that the universe does not owe you anything. They continue to think that it does and therefor god exists. How this very simple point continually falls on deaf ears defies all reason.
LOL4Polio 1 month ago 3
THE ANSWER IS GREEN... MR.DAWKINS
shantolog 1 month ago
Surprised no one's taken 0:26 to 1:00 out of context and made it into another "RICHARD DAWKINS ADMITS GOD IS REAL!!!!" etc. video yet.
jaffacakesarenice 1 month ago
@jaffacakesarenice Don't give them ideas, they'll do it for sure :C
Tamerleen 1 month ago
I think Dawkins won with his final remark in showing the obvious stupidity in Dr. Craig's question. There is no answer...yet.
drufuss2006 1 month ago
Does anyone know where I can get the whole debate?
nluzwick1 1 month ago
Check out my videos "Religion is ridiculous" (Specifically Christianity)..good stuff...rate it! Christians i CHALLENGE you to watch and have an open mind....Anti-theists watch and give the vids a thumbs up!!
gasmask4poop 1 month ago
Ironically (@2:38), William Lane Craig holds a pen like a monkey does.
doh!
ninjamojo711 1 month ago
Thunderf00t showed it best: Professor Dawkins has more citations on his most popular article than William obtained in his entire career. I am slightly curious as to William's private life. I wonder what his dark shadows are. Like does he do drugs or buys gay prostitutes to help take the edge off his Christian persona? I can't imagine the level of pent-up frustration a guy that's been promoting bullshit for 62 years must have.
Water4Jeremiah 1 month ago
Craig got hitchslapped.... by Dawkins.
kongurinn1980 1 month ago 11
@kongurinn1980 if only richard took the name dick for short, he would have been dick slapped
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kongurinn1980 if only richard took the name dick for short, he would have been dick slapped
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago