@Inflatonable Theres that common athiest tactic, take a theory and call it fact. Haha how sad. Everyone who knows anything about physics knows that is a theory and no one really understands it.
Dawkins answers every question with logic and honesty. You cannot argue with Dawkins claims. Like he says, read the books, Qur'an, Bible etc. Dawkins takes his evidence from the books these idiots believe, then they claim he's lying and wrong lol. Some people cannot look facts in the face due to fear of realizaition.
"Everything counts as evidence for a god and because there is something, there must be a god."
That's basically what Quinn is arguing and that makes his case unimportant as much it makes the god's existence he is arguing for totally unimportant.
Until Quinn can show that this god has other attributes than the fact that it's the first uncaused cause, he can shut the f up and go to a shame vacation.
All arguments Quinn used were flawed. Dawkins really could have done better here and should not have let that guy get away with some of those fallacies.
Dawkins has really become a joke, I used to think he was ok and was interested in the truth, but now I honestly can't understand why anyone would give him the time of day.
Quinn really caught Dawkins in his guilt. Quinn was right about everything except that God is proven by the inconclusiveness of science. William Lane Craig had a better explanation saying that the presupposition of Intelligent Design is more probable than that of a Big Bang Theory. And he is totally correct. This means that the idea that God exists is more likely than everything created from nothing. Dawkins is truly a fundamentalist who will twist things to condemn religion because he hates it.
An uncaused cause is not by definition God. According to monotheism God is a personal being with personal attributes. An uncaused cuase is simply that, an uncaused cause.
Quinn is a joke and his free will point is laughable. Aside from his ridiculous statement that atheists believe people are 'controlled completely by their genes', if theist's claim of an omnipotent, omniscient god is true, this being knows everything that we're going to do, rendering free will an illusion as we're destined to play out a predetermined future.
God is omniscient. He creates you knowing before you are born every detail, every you pick your nose, fart, think something that is not nice etc, of what you will ever do until your death and there is nothing you can do differently from what God has planned for you at the moment of creation of the universe.
@killer4hire So if "god" knows everything about you before he creates you, including knowing you wouldn't believe him. Why does he create you? And when he does... Why does he damn you for it?
That is something that indeed is impossible to explain. There is no excuse for creating creatures damned to go to hell other than for sadistic pleasure but that does not sound very God like.
That is something that indeed is impossible to explain. There is no excuse for creating creatures damned to go to hell other than for sadistic pleasure but that does not sound very God like.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
"Matter exists, therefore God must exist, for otherwise who created the matter?" With views as childish as this, was David Quinn really qualified to have a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins? If God created the matter, then who created God? (and why did God create the matter, for that matter?) Any answers all boils down to faith - which IS belief without evidence, contrary to David Quinn's wild assertions. What a joke.
"Matter exists, therefore God must exist, for otherwise who created the matter?" With views as childish as this, was David Quinn really qualified to have a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins? If God created the matter, then who created God? (and why did God create the matter, for that matter?) Any answers all boils down to faith - which IS belief without evidence, contrary to David Quinn's wild assertions. What a joke.
@67hob Are you seriously using the who designed the designer argument? I mean, seriously. I assume you support the idea of a theory of everything? Because if you do then, by your logic, you also need an explainer of the explainer. Leading to an infinate regress which destroys science and the scientific progress. It's also interesting that until a few decades ago most scientists thought the universe was eternal, so why not envisage an eternal person?
@Ohyewildthong Because a person is a complex being which, as far as we know, could only come about as an end product of a process moving from simplicity to complexity. My point in evoking the 'who designed the designer?' argument was not to imply that every explanation requires a further explanation - I was merely pointing out that the design explanation is an incredibly poor (though not technically impossible) explanation PRECISELY BECAUSE it raises more questions than it answers.
@67hob But your problem here is that you're simply viewing God as the person and not as the other things, such as laws. When I say person I don't mean a material person. Once again, your argument simply detroys science.
@67hob Personal would have been a better term. As in not made of matter. If you somehow think that if there was a God He would be made of matter then you are comitting one of the biggest mistakes of the atheist; making a God a normal human being.
@67hob Nice piece of rhetoric, I said rolling my eyes. Seriously, please study the basics of philosophy before making such foolish comments. By the way, the answer is spirit.
@Ohyewildthong Your scathing tone masks only the fact that your 'non-material, spiritual, eternal person' is the only piece of fluffy, meaningless rhetoric being bandied about here.
@67hob Tell me then. how do you know what I am writing. As a materialist, which is what you must profess as an atheist, the words that you and I are writing are illogical, they contain a semiotic value that the movement of matter cannot explain. So technically, by your logic, the debate between you and I is actually impossible. However I am not a materialist, as you are, because it is simply an illogical position, as what I'm writing proves. Oh, and learn what rhetoric is please.
@Ohyewildthong I know what you're writing, because I can read. Language is the communication of ideas: ideas are electrical patterns in the brain: brains are products of evolution: evolution is a natural process. What exactly is your point?! Oh, and by the way, rhetoric is any piece of verbal communicaion with the intent to persuade. Sarcasm, which is what I used initially ('magic dust') is indeed a rhetorical device. So is meaningless obscurantism, such as 'non-material, eternal person.' Clear?
@67hob I am quite clear, thank you very much. It would appear it is you who is not, but this is a side issue. Oh yes, that's part of it. But that's simply like saying that the value of words can be explained by the chemical composition of the ink and paper, it simply doesn't work and any scientist with a shred of honesty would agree with this. Again, by your own logic you simply cannot read this, simples really.
@Ohyewildthong You don't appear to be clear on very much at all. Why on earth are the words that we're writing 'illogical' and 'impossible' from a materialist point of view?
@67hob Seriously, from the guy who uses the "who designed the designer argument", the argument of the five year old. I simply ask, as a materialist, how is the semiotic value of the word existing, if you use merely science you simply cannot show it. The same goes for morals and beauty as well; by your logic those things cannot exist, yet they do showing your position to be wrong frankly.
@Ohyewildthong Oh please. Do you really have so little confidence in your own arguments that you feel the need to constantly pepper them with insults?! How can morals exist using merely science, you ask? Well let's look at kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and the psychological field of empathy for a start. Then filter them through with an understanding of the legal system and cultural evolution, and I'd say you've got a pretty good starting point for understanding the origin of human morals.
@67hob I didn't insult you, but your rather ridiculous argument, a huge difference. Tell me, where, just where, in my post did I ask" How can morals exist using merely science". Shall I tell you where, no where. I merely said that science cannot tell you what it right or wrong. That's a simple fact. That's not to say the morality is a proof of God or anything, I'm merely pointing to the limits of science. Do you really feel so un-confident with your "arguments" that you resort to straw men?
@Ohyewildthong The purpose of a debate shouldn't be to "insult" someone else's argument, it should be to deconstruct it. You stated that "by my logic" morals shouldn't exist. I then offered my, I think reasonably logical account of why morals DO exist. I didn't use science, no - but neither did I have to resort to a spiritual/supernatural explanation. I used rationalism and, yes, logic. If you can't grasp that, I'm sorry. This debate is going nowhere: I shan't be replying to this again. Goodbye.
@Ohyewildthong Morals don't exist in objective truths. Morals are an entirely human concept developed through our need for a stable society. Thus, morals are subjective are nature. Science and logic can tell you exactly HOW each and every moral value came into existence in our society. However, science can not tell you what moral value is "good" or "bad" because objective reality, that is nature, does not deal in "good" or "bad".
There could be a god but we ultimately don't know which one it is, and if it isn't god then it's still completely unknown to us until we have further answers. Assuming we know which god it is seems to be going a bit far though, how can any of us claim the right to know what god thinks, feels, or expresses? It's too large an assumption for anyone to make that they know the will of god.
Another win for Dawkins, I really can't think how anyone could think that David Quinn won this argument except a Christian. We don't know where matter came from so it was probably made by god. Give me a break.
Children believing in God as adults doesn't change the legitimacy of the belief unless it's based on evidence. Dawkins only equivocated the two under prompting by the interviewer. Also, one cannot prove a negative. Burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim.
Matter must have a cause and that cause must be David Quinn's imaginary friend (who must be uncaused and unmoved)? And atheists lose the argument because they refuse to jump to conclusions (and prefer to admit that they don't yet know what caused matter)? LMFAO
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
And here I thought the fact of matter proved the existence of matter. Little did I know!
But this is interesting. When we do discover the scientific origin of matter, will you religious folks throw in the towel and call it a day? That's the implication I got from Quinn's words anyway.
@zSanosake Eye-witness testimony, whether by atheist or believer, is absolutely useless. It does not constitute evidence and it cannot prove anything. There are simply too many possible explanations for a near-death experience to conclude that it proves anything about god or the afterlife.
Wow Richard Dawkins really doesnt seem to know his History and it shows when he equates the conflict in Northern Ireland as a religious issue. It is the result of centuries of ethnic discrimination and a national independence movement.
You can't compare Dawkins belief that man will find the origin of matter/the universe and soforth, to religious faith. This is simply not the case because Dawkins' belief is based on EVIDENCE, it's a projection, not faith. We have already discovered many more fermions and bosons than could have been imagined to exist 100 years ago, and seemingly quarks are a fundamental particle. Proving the existence of a Higg's boson or finding a GUT would hopefully shut some of you religious quacks up...
I'd have to re-listen to the video, but I don't recall Dawkins saying that they would find the answer, only that they are working on it. The default answer of, "I don't know." Which requires no faith, merely an openness and willingness to keep looking. I don't know the contents of this locked box is justification for neither, "I will know," nor for, "It must be filled with gold."
After what the Christian said at around 7:40 "evolution explains matter organizing itself, not where matter came from... science will never answer where matter came from"
Are you fucking serious whoever posted this video? You think that someone who makes that weak of an argument is winning? I can tell by your description that you think Dawkins not only lost, but lost BY A LANDSLIDE. If you are being serious, I pity you.
"It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself 'where does matter come from?' And it is perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer 'God created matter.'" Quinn.
Interesting.
David Quinn makes many ad hominem fallacies. He criticizes Dawkins more vocally than Dawkins' points.
Dawkins offered up his opinions in a straightforward, rational, manner. Quinn offered up no facts to support his contention about where matter came from, whatsoever. Therefore, no "spanking" took place. THE end. :-)
Dawkins offered no facts. He avoided statements (free will, probable matter origins) to which a man of his education would know to suit an argument against religion. I've seen many Dawkins vids and he comes across as a bitter man from a christian background looking to discredit the justificatoin for organised religion for himself and for others.
And religion is minimal to the Irish troubles (qhixh he ignores) to nationalism and culturalism. Free will is very significant concerning the existence of a deity.
Mrenlighteneddespot, who posted twice to this site, is probably a roman catholic child-raping paedophile, worried sensless that he won't be able to ram his dick up altarboys arses. A real sick fuck, like the rest of the moronic irish.
If you read this Irish twat's ramblings in the newspapers, he's shitting and pissing his little catholic arse to prevent the truth about the wholesale rape of kids by roman catholic priests becoming even more public than it is.
David Quinn (if you're not Irish and don't know him) is a fundamentalist ideologue working hard to bring back clerical rule in Ireland with CB-run industrial schools, censorship, homosexuality banned, no contraception, no divorce, no condoms (just like in the good old days, this won't apply to the poor, the rich will get indulgences)
David Quinn is an extreme right-wing scumbag who would like to return us to the days of Magdaleen laundries, censorship of books/films, no divorce for battered wives, church control of hospitals and schools, no contraception (it's God's will if you have 20 children you can't feed), no sex education for kids, homosexuality a criminal offence...and of course, the likes of Bishop Eamonn Casey and Fr Michael Cleary preaching Hellfire to anyone who doesn't go along with the fundo agenda
Well done David Quinn for standing up to and putting in his place that filthy liar who claims to talk truth based on evidence. The Bible, Bernadette at Lourdes, the fact that Jesus came to earth two years ago as Gods son born of the Virgin birth who taught God's word and died for our sins, the fact that world we live in such a natural, beautiful place in many ways perfectly designed- how mcuh evidence do you need that God exists? Dawkins better repent reak quick or recieve eternity in hells fire
Richard Dawkins is a lying perverted blasphemer who ought to shut up and see the truth. He has no right to bang on about religion being center of evil then deny Atheists are of the same nature. Here some history of your beloved Athiests Dawkins other than Hitleretc: Robespierre- leader of French Revolution and profound Atheist who aimed to cure France of religion by slicing the heads of religious figures.
Mao- Communist Chinese dictator and athiest who also sought cleanse China of all religion
Richard Dawkins, by all reports I've read, is a very good biologist. However, he's not even a college-level philosopher, and he really needs to keep his ignorant, sorry ass OUT of the field. He makes a complete ass of himself here, and isn't even bright enough to be aware of it. Dawkins is a complete embarrassment to the atheist cause, and if atheists were a quarter as intelligent as they claim to be, they would convince this horse's ass to keep his ignorant mouth shut.
I used to be a atheist (before I became a deist) and i used to think Richard Dawkins was a genius or something, now I look at it without bias, he is a great scientist but a terrible philosohper. Behind the ranting and ridiculing about religion I dont think he has much ground to stand on at all.
Dawkins is terrible at philosophy and got destroyed in this argument. Anyways who thinks otherwise is a moron, who needs to try out for cheerleading last place sport teams.
@Templarforever david quinn sounds like a little kid. dawkins tries to explain evolution by looking at facts while quinn just uses childish arguments
. how can you say he won the argument when his two main points were: 1) if you are not religious you don't believe that you can make choices for yourself, and 2) how did matter get here? the first of those arguments is ridiculous while the other simply makes the point that neither evolution nor religion can be proven at this day in age.
@ElProximo Ah ha, so if he raises his voice, interrupts Dawkins and generally overpowers him with volume to the point of distorting the recording medium, it means he has "owned" him? Interesting.
furthermore, dawkins does not believe in "god" because the bible is simply RIDICULOUS. it is highly flawed. he has obviously read it! its full of contradictions, craziness and HIGHLIGHTS the myths of a specific culture. that is the core reason behind his decision to become an atheist. similarly, he obviously has never found any other religion to be worthy of a second look! i hope that science finds the answers soon because i am so sick of religion! its all BLAH BLAH BLAH!
i really feel sorry for richard dawkins, he is constantly forced to argue with nitwits, must be so frustrating. quinn couldnt understand the profundity of dawkins opinion, i.e. that quinn's belief that the very existense of matter, is some kind of proof of "gods" existence. how daft! and quinn's quite apparent anger, during some sections of this "debate" give cause to the belief, that those who believe in "god" are IMMATURE, SNOTNOSED LITTLE SHITS.
so... did quinn ever answer the question as to whether he had more evidence for god than for faeries? cause he didn't answer the question as to what faith is :)
@liandzbergis actually, all he said regarding matter was that science doesn't explain how it came into being. he does not posit it as 'more evidence for god than for faeiries', because in such a question of how matter came into being, faeries is just as much a good explanation as any god
Most of what Richard Dawkins said can be "flipped" on him.
- We get our morality from somewhere else not the Bible? (that's vague.. Richard, at least explain).
I thought athiesm was "I don't believe in the existence of a god" not "There is no God/ God doesn't exist"... What I hate about athiests is that they use both arguments whenever it suits them (they argue the 2nd most of the time, but when it comes to who the burden should rest on they start claiming the 1st).
To have authority or to dictate someone's life based on right and wrong and passing on moral judgment is ridiculous. That is not the way the natural world works. All freedom is our natural and eternal right not the gift of some religion or government to decide if its gonna give it to us or not.
Morality is a human construction there is no such thing as good or bad we call it good and bad because each one of us has a different level of perception. Everyone is brought up differently with different values it is the culture and the environment that shapes human behaviour.
@Bobathefish The kind of wisdom that comes from a lifetime of intellectual effort. The kind of wisdom that comes from a person who knows that doing science is incredibly hard work, regardless of who you are. The kind of wisdom that comes from having deep insights into nature, yet realizing there's so far to go. The kind of wisdom that sees that invoking supernatural explanations into reality undermines humanity's struggle to progress beyond savagery.
@juz111 Richard Dawkins is uncertain on the "matter" issue, but is certain/BELIEVES scientists are working on it & will find out where matter came from. How is that not FAITH?
HOW WILL I BE IMPRESSED BY DAWKINS? If I see him preaching about atheism & how bad Islam is on the streets of Tehran or Damascus. He won't because he is "busy". Puh-lease...more like scared. He is a fool that is headed to hell unless he repents & calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. PERIOD.
@phimos5392 Ofcourse the of seeking scientific answers requires a type faith, trust or confidence. But what's your point? Flying an airplane requires faith in the science of flight ....some people have faith that world will end on a particular date because a guru told them so. Would you not make any distinction between those examples of faith? Rational scientific faith, trust or whatever you want to call it is not the same as religious faith....obviously...
@juz111 there is generally nothing wrong with seeking scientific answers...Christians do the same. My point is that Dawkins DOES NOT know what scientists will find. So, in essence, he is exercising his faith. Don't go down a rabbit trail, we are talking about Dawkins & matter, not planes, trains & gurus.
@phimos5392 Christians aren't the ones seeking scientific answers...Scientists are. True, some maybe even a lot of them are Christians but doing Science requires them to use the Scientific method. Understand Dawkins point? His faith isn't in the conclusions themselves, but the methods used to reach them. Science demands intellect, knowledge and hard work to produce testable evidence. Until the answers are known (if ever) have faith in the most rational way of getting at the truth. Matter=Physics
@phimos5392 What???? I was expressing bemusement in your idiotic statement about Richard Dawkins being scared to preach on the streets of Tehran or Damascus! Of course he'd be scared....who would'nt be? Why would him preaching there impress you? What was your point?
@juz111 The statement is idiotic 2 U b/c it turns the tables on your boy. If he feels so strong about atheism, then he should go further, even to the streets. Who am I kidding, he won't even debate Dr. William Lane Craig. Dawkins takes pot shots at Bible believers from prestigious Universities.
There is NO way I would defend this guy like so many are doing. He is leading people where? To freedom of the mind? All of us already have that, so where does this clown fit in? He is a coward & a fool.
Can anyone appreciate that if a person "see's the light" and subjugates him or herself the the almighty, the infallable creator of the Universe, then they are faced with a choice of many? Surely, that fact alone would be suggestive of a man made entity.
"science does not know where matter came from,i do not believe science will ever figure it out,there for my explanation that god did it is more credible".an argument from ignorance if ever there was one.Quin also completely misstates, Hitler as an atheist something contradicted b pretty much every statement Hitler ever made.
@NemoUtopian I think Quinn dodged that particular bullet, by only mentioning Stalin. It's pretty much the only good thing I can say about his presentation.
Is'nt it rational to assume that given the sciences demolition of so many Theistic claims about nature in the past, it's suggestive that Theism may be inadequate to answer the ultimate question about it. Dawkins is attempting to debate someone that invokes the "God is outside time and space" argument....takes a real genius to pull that one. Atheism aside, the "God" that created the Universe in David Quinn's mind is one of many a person could believe in.....are they all equally valid?
Simply put: No, there is not much rational about assuming that. The fact that there are bogus theistic claims on the market does not mean that every theistic claim is nonsense. Dawkins likes to say that any god as an explanation is rubbish, but he fails to realize that the Judeo-Christian God (a transcendent God who can create matter, space and time out of nothing) is logically coherent with a Big Bang universe. A "spaghetti monster" is not.
@Bobathefish A "transcendent God" is impossibly vague, and the definition might as well apply to the human-like Yahweh or to a spaghetti monster (If the transcendent god can have feet to walk around Eden with and lungs to 'breathe life' into Adam, why can't he have noodles and meatballs?)
@Bobathefish I'm not talking about "Spaghetti Monsters". I'm talking about Eastern religions.....In relation to Judeo-Christianity......the're all Athiests. Regarding what is logically coherent?!? A transcendent/Supernatural God that resides outside time and space is coherent with anything you can dream up......no explanation needed. Do you see the problem?
besides dawkins being just a flat out liar and demonstratively dishonest with his elementary misconstrued arguments, the thing that's most notable is the way he chooses to judge god. he judges god much in the same way a psychopath criminal would evaluate and judge a police detective for getting in his way of what he sees fit. it's the oldest lie in the book dawkins and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker...
your own misguided trust in your own reliability will betray you in the end.
How many times does an event or occurance in this life need to be relived for it to be recognized as a fact? The answer is broad but really... Only once or twice.Just that each individual has to make up there own mind.It's known by most as 'Freewill'.
Only when one becomes persecuted for his belief does it become a problem.
Wise men see the atheist making fun of those who hold faith in the knowledge of their creator & the believer biting at the atheist's bait.
Dawkins claims that he only trusts what can be proved. Then why can´t he be more honest and say that he simply believes in man´s ability to do scientific research and that he doesn´t know squat about our existence other than what can be put under a microscope? He seems to be out in way to deep water pretending he is a philosopher, having no clue about the origin of the universe - which is fair enough - but at the same time ruling out a possible explanation for it. Who says he is not a believer?
Are you saying that there is no evidence or argument to support God as the beginner or the origin of the universe?
I guess no-one would say that there is a 100% water-tight logical proof for God´s existence or involvement, but that kind of certainty is never the case in philosophy - and only rarely in natural sciences. As a first one needs to aim for explanations which are better than their negations. In this case one can certainly argue that `God` makes more sense than `nothing`.
I'm saying that there is no compelling evidence or argument to support the existence of a "supernatural realm"--a term that has yet to be coherently defined in the first place. The word God is simply a placeholder for our own ignorance and, historically speaking, the "God did it" claim has always proven to be premature.
The choice isn't between God and "nothing"; it is between a vague, nebulous concept that explains nothing, and the honest admission that WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
@Bobathefish "As a first one needs to aim for explanations which are better than their negations. In this case one can certainly argue that `God` makes more sense than `nothing`."
What a terribly pointless line of reasoning you've undertaken.
The real question is "What do we know about such things?' The answer is 'nothing'.
So how about leaving it there and saying "We don't know"?
That way people aren't tempted to embellish and claim knowledge they don't actually have :)
Just "leaving it there" sounds to me more like "I don´t want to know".
Through reasoning it is quite possible to rule out what doesn´t make sense, like "The flying spaghetti monster" which simply can´t be an explanation. To have "spaghetti" you first need molecules - and so on. Anything that logically can function as an explanation, what ever it may be, must in some way be self-existent and not be confined to time and space itself. The God of the Bible fits those criteria.
@Bobathefish - "Just "leaving it there" sounds to me more like "I don´t want to know"."
Then you need your ears tested.
If data becomes available then we can analyze it. It'd be great if there was, but there isn't. End of.
"The God of the Bible fits those criteria."
The things that may fit that Gap in our knowledge are essentially infinite. Attempting to squeeze your chosen fantasy in there might make you feel nice, just don't try to pretend you've said anything meaningful about it.
And if you check the "properties" of the gods proposed by different religions, you soon discover that most of them, if not all, are somehow confined to the universe itself - and can easily be ruled out as a possible explanation. Many religions describe god as an entity which is just created by the universe itself. The god of the Bible is unique in not being confined to time and space. Again, we are of course not talking water-tight proof here, but one can get closer to a "match".
Haha! Dawkins got slaughtered in that debate. He's inconsistent on what morality is, uses rhetoric to avoid points he's ignorant on, uses definitions to suit his agenda, and overall, is a pretty poor philosopher.
I loved how Quinn didn't let Dawkins get away with his typical comments like "we atheists don't know how the universe got started but science is working on it but God sure as hell had nothing to do with it". Quinn smoked Dawkins.
@drcraigvideos Oh come on! Quinn is so flagrantly brainwashed that he thinks fiction is reality. And on top of that, he's loudmouthed, self-righteous, and obnoxious in his myth-saturation. Waste of skin.
@drcraigvideos Quinn chides Dawkins for not having an answer to the existence of matter, then simply asserts that god is a likely answer just because he thinks it is, and logical because people who he claims are logical also believe it. His "arguments" were bare assertions and appeals to authority. Dawkins made some missteps here, IMO, but nothing Quinn said came close to "smoking" him. Is this really your standard for "victory"?
@vindicato15 I would rather agree on the oral debate front. Debates are about rhetorical ability and crowd charisma, rather than facts and evidence, and thus favor the BS artist over the scientist.
@Cafeeine I'm also speaking of his bs about all wars being the fault of religion. I mean honestly that is fallacious. War more times than not is the result of human greed and power hunger. It has nothing to do with whether they believe or disbelieve in God. His views often appeal to the emotional than to the logical. Further his historical views border on the sensationalist as well. I mean honestly only the truly illiterate buy these laymen views on history.
@vindicato15 There is a very convenient transcript of this discussion linked in the info bar, try and look up this quote by RD: "I don’t think that religion is the only cause of wars"
So you're arguing against a position RD explicitly doesn't hold. So how do you expect me to take your criticism seriously when you either haven't listened and are arguing against the warped echoes of his arguments you have heard by believers, or blatantly lying?
@Cafeeine then perhaps he should rewrite his position in a new book. Where he explains why he changes his mind and what evidence gave him this sudden change of heart.
Great debate, Quinn puts Dawkins in his place.
seraph595 1 week ago 2
@Inflatonable Theres that common athiest tactic, take a theory and call it fact. Haha how sad. Everyone who knows anything about physics knows that is a theory and no one really understands it.
seraph595 2 weeks ago
Quinn's arguments are very boring. Easily refutable. But unfortunately Dawkins isn't the greatest debater.
SOS763 1 month ago
Dawkins answers every question with logic and honesty. You cannot argue with Dawkins claims. Like he says, read the books, Qur'an, Bible etc. Dawkins takes his evidence from the books these idiots believe, then they claim he's lying and wrong lol. Some people cannot look facts in the face due to fear of realizaition.
SOS763 1 month ago
Probable Answer doesn't mean it's true.
MrTwistedHawk 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
There is nothing special about matter. Quantum fields are producing matter spontaneuosly from nothing all around us (and within us) all the time.
Inflatonable 1 month ago
"Everything counts as evidence for a god and because there is something, there must be a god."
That's basically what Quinn is arguing and that makes his case unimportant as much it makes the god's existence he is arguing for totally unimportant.
Until Quinn can show that this god has other attributes than the fact that it's the first uncaused cause, he can shut the f up and go to a shame vacation.
leflipmo 2 months ago
All arguments Quinn used were flawed. Dawkins really could have done better here and should not have let that guy get away with some of those fallacies.
killer4hire 2 months ago
Dawkins has really become a joke, I used to think he was ok and was interested in the truth, but now I honestly can't understand why anyone would give him the time of day.
lukehase 2 months ago
Quinn really caught Dawkins in his guilt. Quinn was right about everything except that God is proven by the inconclusiveness of science. William Lane Craig had a better explanation saying that the presupposition of Intelligent Design is more probable than that of a Big Bang Theory. And he is totally correct. This means that the idea that God exists is more likely than everything created from nothing. Dawkins is truly a fundamentalist who will twist things to condemn religion because he hates it.
highnote606 3 months ago
An uncaused cause is not by definition God. According to monotheism God is a personal being with personal attributes. An uncaused cuase is simply that, an uncaused cause.
dannytibi 3 months ago
Quinn is a joke and his free will point is laughable. Aside from his ridiculous statement that atheists believe people are 'controlled completely by their genes', if theist's claim of an omnipotent, omniscient god is true, this being knows everything that we're going to do, rendering free will an illusion as we're destined to play out a predetermined future.
It's getting boring now, but - THEIST FAIL.
Sigrhofundr 3 months ago
Quinn: "Free will is proof of God."
Dawkins: "I'm not interested in free will"
... Facepalm.
AcAwSk8Vids 3 months ago
@AcAwSk8Vids
God is omniscient. He creates you knowing before you are born every detail, every you pick your nose, fart, think something that is not nice etc, of what you will ever do until your death and there is nothing you can do differently from what God has planned for you at the moment of creation of the universe.
In Christianity human free will is impassible.
killer4hire 2 months ago
@killer4hire Maybe you should tell Dawkins that, since youre clearly a better debater than he is? ;D
AcAwSk8Vids 2 months ago
@killer4hire You should tell that to dawkins as you're obviously a better debater than he is then :D
AcAwSk8Vids 2 months ago
@killer4hire So if "god" knows everything about you before he creates you, including knowing you wouldn't believe him. Why does he create you? And when he does... Why does he damn you for it?
Brandonmxb 3 weeks ago
@Brandonmxb
That is something that indeed is impossible to explain.
There is no excuse for creating creatures damned to go to hell other than for sadistic pleasure but that does not sound very God like.
killer4hire 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brandonmxb
That is something that indeed is impossible to explain. There is no excuse for creating creatures damned to go to hell other than for sadistic pleasure but that does not sound very God like.
killer4hire 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brandonmxb
That is something that indeed is impossible to explain. There is no excuse for creating creatures damned to go to hell other than for sadistic pleasure but that does not sound very God like.
killer4hire 3 weeks ago
@Brandonmxb Seems like a common thing to say, but there are hardly a shortness of answers if you google it.
DCDUO 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
David Quinn cut Richard Dawkins to ribbons.
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56 Er, no he didn't.
SeanOBriain 4 months ago
@Entropy56 And Dawkins took each ribbon, tied him up, and strangled the life out of him.
taiwanoob 3 months ago
I love how Dawkins suddenly isn't interested in something when his logical flaws are pointed out.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
David Quinn whipped Dawkins like a little school girl..lmao..Ahhhh those Silly Atheists *sigh* :)
mellymel51029 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Matter exists, therefore God must exist, for otherwise who created the matter?" With views as childish as this, was David Quinn really qualified to have a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins? If God created the matter, then who created God? (and why did God create the matter, for that matter?) Any answers all boils down to faith - which IS belief without evidence, contrary to David Quinn's wild assertions. What a joke.
67hob 5 months ago
"Matter exists, therefore God must exist, for otherwise who created the matter?" With views as childish as this, was David Quinn really qualified to have a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins? If God created the matter, then who created God? (and why did God create the matter, for that matter?) Any answers all boils down to faith - which IS belief without evidence, contrary to David Quinn's wild assertions. What a joke.
67hob 5 months ago
@67hob Are you seriously using the who designed the designer argument? I mean, seriously. I assume you support the idea of a theory of everything? Because if you do then, by your logic, you also need an explainer of the explainer. Leading to an infinate regress which destroys science and the scientific progress. It's also interesting that until a few decades ago most scientists thought the universe was eternal, so why not envisage an eternal person?
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong Because a person is a complex being which, as far as we know, could only come about as an end product of a process moving from simplicity to complexity. My point in evoking the 'who designed the designer?' argument was not to imply that every explanation requires a further explanation - I was merely pointing out that the design explanation is an incredibly poor (though not technically impossible) explanation PRECISELY BECAUSE it raises more questions than it answers.
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob But your problem here is that you're simply viewing God as the person and not as the other things, such as laws. When I say person I don't mean a material person. Once again, your argument simply detroys science.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong YOU are the one who used the word 'person' not me! And what do you mean by a non-material person? What other kind of person is there?
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob Personal would have been a better term. As in not made of matter. If you somehow think that if there was a God He would be made of matter then you are comitting one of the biggest mistakes of the atheist; making a God a normal human being.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong What would he be made of then? Magic dust?
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob Nice piece of rhetoric, I said rolling my eyes. Seriously, please study the basics of philosophy before making such foolish comments. By the way, the answer is spirit.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong Your scathing tone masks only the fact that your 'non-material, spiritual, eternal person' is the only piece of fluffy, meaningless rhetoric being bandied about here.
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob Tell me then. how do you know what I am writing. As a materialist, which is what you must profess as an atheist, the words that you and I are writing are illogical, they contain a semiotic value that the movement of matter cannot explain. So technically, by your logic, the debate between you and I is actually impossible. However I am not a materialist, as you are, because it is simply an illogical position, as what I'm writing proves. Oh, and learn what rhetoric is please.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong I know what you're writing, because I can read. Language is the communication of ideas: ideas are electrical patterns in the brain: brains are products of evolution: evolution is a natural process. What exactly is your point?! Oh, and by the way, rhetoric is any piece of verbal communicaion with the intent to persuade. Sarcasm, which is what I used initially ('magic dust') is indeed a rhetorical device. So is meaningless obscurantism, such as 'non-material, eternal person.' Clear?
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob I am quite clear, thank you very much. It would appear it is you who is not, but this is a side issue. Oh yes, that's part of it. But that's simply like saying that the value of words can be explained by the chemical composition of the ink and paper, it simply doesn't work and any scientist with a shred of honesty would agree with this. Again, by your own logic you simply cannot read this, simples really.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong You don't appear to be clear on very much at all. Why on earth are the words that we're writing 'illogical' and 'impossible' from a materialist point of view?
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob Seriously, from the guy who uses the "who designed the designer argument", the argument of the five year old. I simply ask, as a materialist, how is the semiotic value of the word existing, if you use merely science you simply cannot show it. The same goes for morals and beauty as well; by your logic those things cannot exist, yet they do showing your position to be wrong frankly.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong Oh please. Do you really have so little confidence in your own arguments that you feel the need to constantly pepper them with insults?! How can morals exist using merely science, you ask? Well let's look at kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and the psychological field of empathy for a start. Then filter them through with an understanding of the legal system and cultural evolution, and I'd say you've got a pretty good starting point for understanding the origin of human morals.
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob I didn't insult you, but your rather ridiculous argument, a huge difference. Tell me, where, just where, in my post did I ask" How can morals exist using merely science". Shall I tell you where, no where. I merely said that science cannot tell you what it right or wrong. That's a simple fact. That's not to say the morality is a proof of God or anything, I'm merely pointing to the limits of science. Do you really feel so un-confident with your "arguments" that you resort to straw men?
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong The purpose of a debate shouldn't be to "insult" someone else's argument, it should be to deconstruct it. You stated that "by my logic" morals shouldn't exist. I then offered my, I think reasonably logical account of why morals DO exist. I didn't use science, no - but neither did I have to resort to a spiritual/supernatural explanation. I used rationalism and, yes, logic. If you can't grasp that, I'm sorry. This debate is going nowhere: I shan't be replying to this again. Goodbye.
67hob 4 months ago
@67hob The ideas of right and wrong cannot be proven by material means, so no, your logic cannot acess them.
Ohyewildthong 4 months ago
@Ohyewildthong Morals don't exist in objective truths. Morals are an entirely human concept developed through our need for a stable society. Thus, morals are subjective are nature. Science and logic can tell you exactly HOW each and every moral value came into existence in our society. However, science can not tell you what moral value is "good" or "bad" because objective reality, that is nature, does not deal in "good" or "bad".
taiwanoob 3 months ago
@Ohyewildthong Logic is a rational means. If right and wrong cannot be determined through rational inquiry, then you are left with fideism.
dannytibi 3 months ago
There could be a god but we ultimately don't know which one it is, and if it isn't god then it's still completely unknown to us until we have further answers. Assuming we know which god it is seems to be going a bit far though, how can any of us claim the right to know what god thinks, feels, or expresses? It's too large an assumption for anyone to make that they know the will of god.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
@apopyalips and you say that based on what?
milkmankennedy 5 months ago
Another win for Dawkins, I really can't think how anyone could think that David Quinn won this argument except a Christian. We don't know where matter came from so it was probably made by god. Give me a break.
tNJippoes 6 months ago
Children believing in God as adults doesn't change the legitimacy of the belief unless it's based on evidence. Dawkins only equivocated the two under prompting by the interviewer. Also, one cannot prove a negative. Burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim.
gamerunknown 6 months ago
Quinn is a joke
tompa666 6 months ago 4
Matter must have a cause and that cause must be David Quinn's imaginary friend (who must be uncaused and unmoved)? And atheists lose the argument because they refuse to jump to conclusions (and prefer to admit that they don't yet know what caused matter)? LMFAO
ar2de2em2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
David Quinn is so fucking stupid.
oliethefolie 7 months ago
Silly david quinn the world is not 20 billion years old
fjollornaz 7 months ago
And here I thought the fact of matter proved the existence of matter. Little did I know!
But this is interesting. When we do discover the scientific origin of matter, will you religious folks throw in the towel and call it a day? That's the implication I got from Quinn's words anyway.
quaternio 7 months ago
Christianity > Atheism.
'Nuff said.
zSanosake 7 months ago
@zSanosake
Chili cheese fries > Christianity
'nuff said.
quaternio 7 months ago
@quaternio Well, we'll see when you're burning in hell, brah brah.
zSanosake 7 months ago
@zSanosake get a life you blood sucker! there no such a thing as hell . it only exist in your imagination . stupid
MrTheblackmessenger 5 months ago
@zSanosake Prove it.
'Nuff said.
oliethefolie 7 months ago
@oliethefolie Well, when you'll be in hell screaming in agony that should be enough proof, brah brah.
zSanosake 7 months ago
@zSanosake That's very Christian of you. I don't believe in a fairytale so I should burn forever, seems to me like an unjust judge.
Also, threatening people with things they don't believe in is fucking stupid.
oliethefolie 7 months ago
@oliethefolie Look up Howard Storm Near Death Experience 1/12.
Then get back at me.
zSanosake 7 months ago
@zSanosake Lemme' guess, some crazy mother fucker said he saw hell?
oliethefolie 7 months ago
@oliethefolie Well, if you're calling one of your fellow Atheists a "crazy-mother fucker", then you're probably right.
Look it up. :)
zSanosake 7 months ago
@zSanosake So he saw hell and came back?
I'm still going with crazy.
oliethefolie 6 months ago
@zSanosake Eye-witness testimony, whether by atheist or believer, is absolutely useless. It does not constitute evidence and it cannot prove anything. There are simply too many possible explanations for a near-death experience to conclude that it proves anything about god or the afterlife.
L571J 6 months ago
@zSanosake use your brain for fuck sake he doesn't believe in your chizopheniac fairy tale!
MrTheblackmessenger 5 months ago
Wow Richard Dawkins really doesnt seem to know his History and it shows when he equates the conflict in Northern Ireland as a religious issue. It is the result of centuries of ethnic discrimination and a national independence movement.
redbaron998 7 months ago
Dawkins FTW
ChindlerOntheRoof 7 months ago
You can't compare Dawkins belief that man will find the origin of matter/the universe and soforth, to religious faith. This is simply not the case because Dawkins' belief is based on EVIDENCE, it's a projection, not faith. We have already discovered many more fermions and bosons than could have been imagined to exist 100 years ago, and seemingly quarks are a fundamental particle. Proving the existence of a Higg's boson or finding a GUT would hopefully shut some of you religious quacks up...
ChindlerOntheRoof 7 months ago
I'd have to re-listen to the video, but I don't recall Dawkins saying that they would find the answer, only that they are working on it. The default answer of, "I don't know." Which requires no faith, merely an openness and willingness to keep looking. I don't know the contents of this locked box is justification for neither, "I will know," nor for, "It must be filled with gold."
atsukoh 7 months ago
After what the Christian said at around 7:40 "evolution explains matter organizing itself, not where matter came from... science will never answer where matter came from"
Are you fucking serious whoever posted this video? You think that someone who makes that weak of an argument is winning? I can tell by your description that you think Dawkins not only lost, but lost BY A LANDSLIDE. If you are being serious, I pity you.
AR333 7 months ago
"It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself 'where does matter come from?' And it is perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer 'God created matter.'" Quinn.
Interesting.
David Quinn makes many ad hominem fallacies. He criticizes Dawkins more vocally than Dawkins' points.
gtenshi 7 months ago
Comment removed
gtenshi 7 months ago
Comment removed
khashayar44 7 months ago
Dawkins offered up his opinions in a straightforward, rational, manner. Quinn offered up no facts to support his contention about where matter came from, whatsoever. Therefore, no "spanking" took place. THE end. :-)
FurtherExamination 8 months ago
@FurtherExamination
Dawkins offered no facts. He avoided statements (free will, probable matter origins) to which a man of his education would know to suit an argument against religion. I've seen many Dawkins vids and he comes across as a bitter man from a christian background looking to discredit the justificatoin for organised religion for himself and for others.
geminione3 7 months ago
And religion is minimal to the Irish troubles (qhixh he ignores) to nationalism and culturalism. Free will is very significant concerning the existence of a deity.
geminione3 7 months ago
Mrenlighteneddespot, who posted twice to this site, is probably a roman catholic child-raping paedophile, worried sensless that he won't be able to ram his dick up altarboys arses. A real sick fuck, like the rest of the moronic irish.
leotardgirlbunny 8 months ago
If you read this Irish twat's ramblings in the newspapers, he's shitting and pissing his little catholic arse to prevent the truth about the wholesale rape of kids by roman catholic priests becoming even more public than it is.
leotardgirlbunny 8 months ago
Quinn is a typical roman catholic pervert. He even looks like one.
leotardgirlbunny 8 months ago
David Quinn (if you're not Irish and don't know him) is a fundamentalist ideologue working hard to bring back clerical rule in Ireland with CB-run industrial schools, censorship, homosexuality banned, no contraception, no divorce, no condoms (just like in the good old days, this won't apply to the poor, the rich will get indulgences)
IEatManure 8 months ago
David Quinn is an extreme right-wing scumbag who would like to return us to the days of Magdaleen laundries, censorship of books/films, no divorce for battered wives, church control of hospitals and schools, no contraception (it's God's will if you have 20 children you can't feed), no sex education for kids, homosexuality a criminal offence...and of course, the likes of Bishop Eamonn Casey and Fr Michael Cleary preaching Hellfire to anyone who doesn't go along with the fundo agenda
IEatManure 8 months ago
According to Dawkins this debate was an ambush. He was asked to give an interview and didn't know it was going to be a debate until it started.
2LegHumanist 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins just got destroyed.
bambamgo98 8 months ago
Well done David Quinn for standing up to and putting in his place that filthy liar who claims to talk truth based on evidence. The Bible, Bernadette at Lourdes, the fact that Jesus came to earth two years ago as Gods son born of the Virgin birth who taught God's word and died for our sins, the fact that world we live in such a natural, beautiful place in many ways perfectly designed- how mcuh evidence do you need that God exists? Dawkins better repent reak quick or recieve eternity in hells fire
MrEnlighteneddespot 8 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a lying perverted blasphemer who ought to shut up and see the truth. He has no right to bang on about religion being center of evil then deny Atheists are of the same nature. Here some history of your beloved Athiests Dawkins other than Hitleretc: Robespierre- leader of French Revolution and profound Atheist who aimed to cure France of religion by slicing the heads of religious figures.
Mao- Communist Chinese dictator and athiest who also sought cleanse China of all religion
MrEnlighteneddespot 8 months ago
I never heard of this David Quinn guy but he sure tooled Dawkins.
xchampx 8 months ago
Richard Dawkins, by all reports I've read, is a very good biologist. However, he's not even a college-level philosopher, and he really needs to keep his ignorant, sorry ass OUT of the field. He makes a complete ass of himself here, and isn't even bright enough to be aware of it. Dawkins is a complete embarrassment to the atheist cause, and if atheists were a quarter as intelligent as they claim to be, they would convince this horse's ass to keep his ignorant mouth shut.
philWynk 8 months ago
exposedatheists, I don't know why you've bothered posting a video that beats your cause hands down.
magicmartin18 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a question for atheists. What about those you have lost. Do you not have a need to know they ok?
jesperbech 8 months ago
I used to be a atheist (before I became a deist) and i used to think Richard Dawkins was a genius or something, now I look at it without bias, he is a great scientist but a terrible philosohper. Behind the ranting and ridiculing about religion I dont think he has much ground to stand on at all.
106141214 9 months ago
Dawkins is terrible at philosophy and got destroyed in this argument. Anyways who thinks otherwise is a moron, who needs to try out for cheerleading last place sport teams.
Templarforever 9 months ago
@Templarforever I hear the lions have openings
NANAKISONOFSETO 9 months ago
@Templarforever david quinn sounds like a little kid. dawkins tries to explain evolution by looking at facts while quinn just uses childish arguments
. how can you say he won the argument when his two main points were: 1) if you are not religious you don't believe that you can make choices for yourself, and 2) how did matter get here? the first of those arguments is ridiculous while the other simply makes the point that neither evolution nor religion can be proven at this day in age.
thespennyb 8 months ago
@ElProximo Ah ha, so if he raises his voice, interrupts Dawkins and generally overpowers him with volume to the point of distorting the recording medium, it means he has "owned" him? Interesting.
trident3b 9 months ago
Where is this so called spanking?
Dawkins Wins
johncrab67 9 months ago
Man, what a beating the militant atheist received. This is probably why he prefers to ambush women rather than face informed Christians.
sergiomats 10 months ago
furthermore, dawkins does not believe in "god" because the bible is simply RIDICULOUS. it is highly flawed. he has obviously read it! its full of contradictions, craziness and HIGHLIGHTS the myths of a specific culture. that is the core reason behind his decision to become an atheist. similarly, he obviously has never found any other religion to be worthy of a second look! i hope that science finds the answers soon because i am so sick of religion! its all BLAH BLAH BLAH!
orbitalsatellite 11 months ago
i really feel sorry for richard dawkins, he is constantly forced to argue with nitwits, must be so frustrating. quinn couldnt understand the profundity of dawkins opinion, i.e. that quinn's belief that the very existense of matter, is some kind of proof of "gods" existence. how daft! and quinn's quite apparent anger, during some sections of this "debate" give cause to the belief, that those who believe in "god" are IMMATURE, SNOTNOSED LITTLE SHITS.
orbitalsatellite 11 months ago
existence of matter is only proof of existence of matter. you do know matter and energy can neither be destroyed nor created.... doncha?
GodsArePeopleToo 11 months ago
so... did quinn ever answer the question as to whether he had more evidence for god than for faeries? cause he didn't answer the question as to what faith is :)
GodsArePeopleToo 11 months ago
@GodsArePeopleToo
he said that existence of matter is proof of god's existence. pretty good explanation.
liandzbergis 11 months ago
@liandzbergis actually, all he said regarding matter was that science doesn't explain how it came into being. he does not posit it as 'more evidence for god than for faeiries', because in such a question of how matter came into being, faeries is just as much a good explanation as any god
GodsArePeopleToo 10 months ago
This Quinn guy has no knowlege of science. A total asshole.
tranquist1 1 year ago
Most of what Richard Dawkins said can be "flipped" on him.
- We get our morality from somewhere else not the Bible? (that's vague.. Richard, at least explain).
I thought athiesm was "I don't believe in the existence of a god" not "There is no God/ God doesn't exist"... What I hate about athiests is that they use both arguments whenever it suits them (they argue the 2nd most of the time, but when it comes to who the burden should rest on they start claiming the 1st).
1tymthing 1 year ago
To have authority or to dictate someone's life based on right and wrong and passing on moral judgment is ridiculous. That is not the way the natural world works. All freedom is our natural and eternal right not the gift of some religion or government to decide if its gonna give it to us or not.
MrDimitri2826 1 year ago
Morality is a human construction there is no such thing as good or bad we call it good and bad because each one of us has a different level of perception. Everyone is brought up differently with different values it is the culture and the environment that shapes human behaviour.
MrDimitri2826 1 year ago
Poor performance by Dick Dawk. Not interested in the question of freewill? So much for the search for truth.
Rhology 1 year ago
david quin owned himself
im against dawkins generally but those were bad arguments from the opposing side.
none of the questions answered, they only thing he said is "you dont know where matter came from"
yeah and?
ridiculous.
niinja2 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins exposing his wisdom through uncertainty. David Quinn exposing his ignorance through certainty. How do you define spanking?
juz111 1 year ago 25
@juz111
Well put!!!
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@juz111
"It sure as hell can´t be God". What kind of wisdom is that?
Bobathefish 1 year ago
@Bobathefish The kind of wisdom that comes from a lifetime of intellectual effort. The kind of wisdom that comes from a person who knows that doing science is incredibly hard work, regardless of who you are. The kind of wisdom that comes from having deep insights into nature, yet realizing there's so far to go. The kind of wisdom that sees that invoking supernatural explanations into reality undermines humanity's struggle to progress beyond savagery.
juz111 1 year ago
@juz111 Richard Dawkins is uncertain on the "matter" issue, but is certain/BELIEVES scientists are working on it & will find out where matter came from. How is that not FAITH?
HOW WILL I BE IMPRESSED BY DAWKINS? If I see him preaching about atheism & how bad Islam is on the streets of Tehran or Damascus. He won't because he is "busy". Puh-lease...more like scared. He is a fool that is headed to hell unless he repents & calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. PERIOD.
phimos5392 7 months ago
@phimos5392 Ofcourse the of seeking scientific answers requires a type faith, trust or confidence. But what's your point? Flying an airplane requires faith in the science of flight ....some people have faith that world will end on a particular date because a guru told them so. Would you not make any distinction between those examples of faith? Rational scientific faith, trust or whatever you want to call it is not the same as religious faith....obviously...
juz111 7 months ago
@juz111 there is generally nothing wrong with seeking scientific answers...Christians do the same. My point is that Dawkins DOES NOT know what scientists will find. So, in essence, he is exercising his faith. Don't go down a rabbit trail, we are talking about Dawkins & matter, not planes, trains & gurus.
phimos5392 7 months ago
@phimos5392 Christians aren't the ones seeking scientific answers...Scientists are. True, some maybe even a lot of them are Christians but doing Science requires them to use the Scientific method. Understand Dawkins point? His faith isn't in the conclusions themselves, but the methods used to reach them. Science demands intellect, knowledge and hard work to produce testable evidence. Until the answers are known (if ever) have faith in the most rational way of getting at the truth. Matter=Physics
juz111 7 months ago
@phimos5392 you my friend are a deluded one ... you make no sense at all
MrTheblackmessenger 5 months ago
@phimos5392 As far as preaching on the streets of Tehran...try preaching christianity there...
juz111 7 months ago
@juz111 Christians have been martyred for doing so...in MANY Islamic states. Do the research.
phimos5392 7 months ago
@phimos5392 What???? I was expressing bemusement in your idiotic statement about Richard Dawkins being scared to preach on the streets of Tehran or Damascus! Of course he'd be scared....who would'nt be? Why would him preaching there impress you? What was your point?
juz111 7 months ago
@juz111 The statement is idiotic 2 U b/c it turns the tables on your boy. If he feels so strong about atheism, then he should go further, even to the streets. Who am I kidding, he won't even debate Dr. William Lane Craig. Dawkins takes pot shots at Bible believers from prestigious Universities.
There is NO way I would defend this guy like so many are doing. He is leading people where? To freedom of the mind? All of us already have that, so where does this clown fit in? He is a coward & a fool.
phimos5392 7 months ago
@phimos5392 hahaha and that's funny and.....stupid ! bla bla bla...
MrTheblackmessenger 5 months ago
Can anyone appreciate that if a person "see's the light" and subjugates him or herself the the almighty, the infallable creator of the Universe, then they are faced with a choice of many? Surely, that fact alone would be suggestive of a man made entity.
juz111 1 year ago
"science does not know where matter came from,i do not believe science will ever figure it out,there for my explanation that god did it is more credible".an argument from ignorance if ever there was one.Quin also completely misstates, Hitler as an atheist something contradicted b pretty much every statement Hitler ever made.
NemoUtopian 1 year ago
@NemoUtopian I think Quinn dodged that particular bullet, by only mentioning Stalin. It's pretty much the only good thing I can say about his presentation.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
Is'nt it rational to assume that given the sciences demolition of so many Theistic claims about nature in the past, it's suggestive that Theism may be inadequate to answer the ultimate question about it. Dawkins is attempting to debate someone that invokes the "God is outside time and space" argument....takes a real genius to pull that one. Atheism aside, the "God" that created the Universe in David Quinn's mind is one of many a person could believe in.....are they all equally valid?
juz111 1 year ago
@juz111
Simply put: No, there is not much rational about assuming that. The fact that there are bogus theistic claims on the market does not mean that every theistic claim is nonsense. Dawkins likes to say that any god as an explanation is rubbish, but he fails to realize that the Judeo-Christian God (a transcendent God who can create matter, space and time out of nothing) is logically coherent with a Big Bang universe. A "spaghetti monster" is not.
Bobathefish 1 year ago
@Bobathefish A "transcendent God" is impossibly vague, and the definition might as well apply to the human-like Yahweh or to a spaghetti monster (If the transcendent god can have feet to walk around Eden with and lungs to 'breathe life' into Adam, why can't he have noodles and meatballs?)
Cafeeine 1 year ago
Comment removed
juz111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bobathefish I'm not talking about "Spaghetti Monsters". I'm talking about Eastern religions.....In relation to Judeo-Christianity......the're all Athiests. Regarding what is logically coherent?!? A transcendent/Supernatural God that resides outside time and space is coherent with anything you can dream up......no explanation needed. Do you see the problem?
juz111 1 year ago
I'm baffled how anyone could be impressed by Mr. Quinn. Dawkins is a piss-poor debater, to be sure, but Quinn is sophistry personified.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot
Quinn pretty much ripped Dawkins a new one, no matter how "sophistry personified" he is.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
besides dawkins being just a flat out liar and demonstratively dishonest with his elementary misconstrued arguments, the thing that's most notable is the way he chooses to judge god. he judges god much in the same way a psychopath criminal would evaluate and judge a police detective for getting in his way of what he sees fit. it's the oldest lie in the book dawkins and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker...
your own misguided trust in your own reliability will betray you in the end.
anewdayproductions 1 year ago
when the origin of matter is finally revealed, duh... god will simply move to the one before that. it never ends.
johnyu812 1 year ago
How many times does an event or occurance in this life need to be relived for it to be recognized as a fact? The answer is broad but really... Only once or twice.Just that each individual has to make up there own mind.It's known by most as 'Freewill'.
Only when one becomes persecuted for his belief does it become a problem.
Wise men see the atheist making fun of those who hold faith in the knowledge of their creator & the believer biting at the atheist's bait.
Wise up people & shake it off!
sthnwatch 1 year ago
Dawkins claims that he only trusts what can be proved. Then why can´t he be more honest and say that he simply believes in man´s ability to do scientific research and that he doesn´t know squat about our existence other than what can be put under a microscope? He seems to be out in way to deep water pretending he is a philosopher, having no clue about the origin of the universe - which is fair enough - but at the same time ruling out a possible explanation for it. Who says he is not a believer?
Bobathefish 1 year ago
@Bobathefish
What's wrong with "ruling out a possible explanation" when the explanation proves unsupported by either evidence or argument?
You are right to say that Dawkins isn't a philosopher. He really should stick to biology.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot
Are you saying that there is no evidence or argument to support God as the beginner or the origin of the universe?
I guess no-one would say that there is a 100% water-tight logical proof for God´s existence or involvement, but that kind of certainty is never the case in philosophy - and only rarely in natural sciences. As a first one needs to aim for explanations which are better than their negations. In this case one can certainly argue that `God` makes more sense than `nothing`.
Bobathefish 1 year ago
@Bobathefish
I'm saying that there is no compelling evidence or argument to support the existence of a "supernatural realm"--a term that has yet to be coherently defined in the first place. The word God is simply a placeholder for our own ignorance and, historically speaking, the "God did it" claim has always proven to be premature.
The choice isn't between God and "nothing"; it is between a vague, nebulous concept that explains nothing, and the honest admission that WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@Bobathefish "As a first one needs to aim for explanations which are better than their negations. In this case one can certainly argue that `God` makes more sense than `nothing`."
What a terribly pointless line of reasoning you've undertaken.
The real question is "What do we know about such things?' The answer is 'nothing'.
So how about leaving it there and saying "We don't know"?
That way people aren't tempted to embellish and claim knowledge they don't actually have :)
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@Skindoggiedog
Just "leaving it there" sounds to me more like "I don´t want to know".
Through reasoning it is quite possible to rule out what doesn´t make sense, like "The flying spaghetti monster" which simply can´t be an explanation. To have "spaghetti" you first need molecules - and so on. Anything that logically can function as an explanation, what ever it may be, must in some way be self-existent and not be confined to time and space itself. The God of the Bible fits those criteria.
Bobathefish 1 year ago
@Bobathefish - "Just "leaving it there" sounds to me more like "I don´t want to know"."
Then you need your ears tested.
If data becomes available then we can analyze it. It'd be great if there was, but there isn't. End of.
"The God of the Bible fits those criteria."
The things that may fit that Gap in our knowledge are essentially infinite. Attempting to squeeze your chosen fantasy in there might make you feel nice, just don't try to pretend you've said anything meaningful about it.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago 4
@Skindoggiedog
And if you check the "properties" of the gods proposed by different religions, you soon discover that most of them, if not all, are somehow confined to the universe itself - and can easily be ruled out as a possible explanation. Many religions describe god as an entity which is just created by the universe itself. The god of the Bible is unique in not being confined to time and space. Again, we are of course not talking water-tight proof here, but one can get closer to a "match".
Bobathefish 1 year ago
poor Dawkins got Pwnd here!
gerinja 1 year ago
Hahaha what a disappointment for the atheists lol David Quinn rules!!!!!!
Nobleeagle100 1 year ago
Haha! Dawkins got slaughtered in that debate. He's inconsistent on what morality is, uses rhetoric to avoid points he's ignorant on, uses definitions to suit his agenda, and overall, is a pretty poor philosopher.
TheVodkaHaze 1 year ago
I love how Dawkins continues to use his usual rhetoric in order cover up his ignorance. LOL
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@thunderbolt94
When you don't know something, the honest thing to say is, "I don't know."
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot
Sure, except Dawkins is just purely ignorant.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
I loved how Quinn didn't let Dawkins get away with his typical comments like "we atheists don't know how the universe got started but science is working on it but God sure as hell had nothing to do with it". Quinn smoked Dawkins.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Oh come on! Quinn is so flagrantly brainwashed that he thinks fiction is reality. And on top of that, he's loudmouthed, self-righteous, and obnoxious in his myth-saturation. Waste of skin.
indignant99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@indignant99
Yep. Anyone you disagree with is brainwashed. You're an idiot.
"And on top of that, he's loudmouthed, self-righteous, and obnoxious in his myth-saturation."
Yawn. Ad-hominen. You fail!!
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
Mr. Quinn is the prototypical apologist--long on assertions, short on evidence and, when pushed, slippery as hell.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Quinn chides Dawkins for not having an answer to the existence of matter, then simply asserts that god is a likely answer just because he thinks it is, and logical because people who he claims are logical also believe it. His "arguments" were bare assertions and appeals to authority. Dawkins made some missteps here, IMO, but nothing Quinn said came close to "smoking" him. Is this really your standard for "victory"?
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine Dawkins should stick to his test tubes and beakers. He stinks as a debater and philosopher.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 I would rather agree on the oral debate front. Debates are about rhetorical ability and crowd charisma, rather than facts and evidence, and thus favor the BS artist over the scientist.
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine I'm also speaking of his bs about all wars being the fault of religion. I mean honestly that is fallacious. War more times than not is the result of human greed and power hunger. It has nothing to do with whether they believe or disbelieve in God. His views often appeal to the emotional than to the logical. Further his historical views border on the sensationalist as well. I mean honestly only the truly illiterate buy these laymen views on history.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 There is a very convenient transcript of this discussion linked in the info bar, try and look up this quote by RD: "I don’t think that religion is the only cause of wars"
So you're arguing against a position RD explicitly doesn't hold. So how do you expect me to take your criticism seriously when you either haven't listened and are arguing against the warped echoes of his arguments you have heard by believers, or blatantly lying?
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@Cafeeine then perhaps he should rewrite his position in a new book. Where he explains why he changes his mind and what evidence gave him this sudden change of heart.
vindicato15 1 year ago