I kept waiting for the part where Dawkins seems crazy, but it never came. I'd call this an epic fail, but it's really too childish. I pity the primate that made this.
Wish you could ask F. Nietzsche where he spent the last years of his life...... in a mental institution!! I would not be surprised to see dawkings there sometime in the future!! lol
Dawkins book The God Delusion was torn apart by his fellow Atheist Thomas Nagel. Its clear that Dawkins does not understand the arguments no wonder he refused to show up against Craig he would have a lamb to the slaughter.
@RespectMyHate He may not believe in it, but the people who do tend to push their beliefs and lifestyles on others. He's doing what others are too scared to do, he's loudly questioning beliefs that are unjustly respected and given privileges.
@lilredfilmgeek I mean look, he wrote the god delusion, the greatest show on earth, the blind watch maker, and many more, it sounds like he's trying to push his beliefs on others also, way more then the average Christian.
@RespectMyHate The greatest show on earth focuses on biology. The other two aren't even barely enough. As an ex evangelical I understand that it may seem that the average christian doesn't push very much but they do, they also look down on atheists for no good reason, and demonize them. What Dawkin's is doing with his books is taking intelligent and critical looks at religion, and it really has to be an atheist who does it because the religious don't question beliefs critically
You show a wordless video of, what I can only presume is, a photo shoot. From this you make a prejudicial statement that Dawkins is losing his mind? Your lack of creativity and argument is astounding.
Well, at least he's not praying to the bunny statue like in some religions do and they think that's normal XD :lol: so, nah, Richard's ok........:haha:
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
This is a very weird video... None the less, Dawkins has shown himself to be a irrational, illogical, and inconsistent individual. Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Lennox make an absolute fool of him. Yes, Dawkins is blind and small minded to think nature is all there is, that is an atheist materialist for you... Sad.
@RationalConclusion Well for me, God of course is outside of nature. As for atheist, they believe the Big Bang, String Theory, and The World Ensemble (All supernatural fairytales). Also atheists believe in the supernatural (doesn't not occur in nature) fairytale of Abiogenesis.
@Devin82m Firstly, why do you believe in a god? Which one do you believe in?
Secondly, atheism has no tie to the big bang, string theory or abiogenesis. You can be an atheist and not believe in any of those things. What makes you think that those things are supernatural?
Thirdly, if the supernatural occured in nature it would not be called supernatural. It would be called natural. Things that appear in nature are called natural.
@RationalConclusion Plenty of reasons, look at my playlist on my YouTube chan to get an idea. Of course I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Also don't try the New Atheist approach it is irrational and doesn't work. If an atheist doesn't believe those things then they MUST come up with a logical and rational reason for how they came into existence. They are supernatural because they can not be observed in any way, they can not be repeated, you can only speculate.
@Devin82m So you believe that Jesus was the son of a god and atheists are irrational? That is absurd.
Atheists do not have to provide a reason for how life got here. I will however provide you with the answer which is evolution by way of natural selection.
If something cannot be obserevd or repeated that does not mean that it is supernatural. You obviously don't know what the word supernatural means.
@RationalConclusion Furthermore, if the source of natural creation is outside the creation then it is "supernatural" Something can't create itself, there is always beginning and eventually it must be outside the creation because there is no other layer to hide within. But of course you are trying to use a red herring, this has nothing to do with the fact that those theories are irrational and are super an atheist fairytale to explain their existence in this world. You need more faith than me.
@Devin82m If as you say 'there is always a beginning' then where did god come from?
I don't base any of my beliefs on faith. I base my beliefs on evidence. It is you who bases your beliefs on faith but I suppose you'd have to in order to believe things like virgin births, miracles, the resurrection, souls, heaven, hell, god, angels, satan etc etc.
@RationalConclusion Not one atom of your body consulted 'you' before they came togetther to make your body, right? There was no 'you' to consult, right? There's not one atom of your body that is not blindly obeying the Laws of Physics and Chemisty, right? So what you are saying and they are saying is thoroughly automatic, if you were them you would simply say the things they do. If you 'reason' there are no souls then you are left arguing what exactly? That you genetically superior?
There's nothing really worth debating when it comes to religion, seeing as it is absolute nonsense regardless of what religious people have to say. I really don't understand why religious people believe what they do at all. Nevermind who cares, Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent person; religious people should be debating their beleifs for their own sake. If you can't question something then there must be something you're really afraid of, quit living in fear cowardly religious monkeys.
@hyperspaceuk2012 Probably the reason why most religious people don't debate their beliefs is because they didn't reason themselves into their beliefs. They did not acquire their beliefs though curiously reading arguments and examining evidence like we did. They believe what they do as a result of traumatic indoctrination. Trauma physically damages and rewires the brain. (think of an EX Vietnam vet who has panic attacks and reenacts the war )This is why reason and evidence doesn't work for them.
atheism going through the ROOF in the 21st century! you gotta respect that.. he made people realize that they should stop for a minute and think about what they actually believe in... silly nonsense.. myth and fantasy. stupid religion.
@sethecx What he did was sent a bunch of boys out to find the magical accident theory! He tried to say he had it and brought it to a WLC debate and lost. Now, you think that you will find it, too. Amazing, your claims that we should not believe in God and believe in the theory that you still don't have. Where's your sense? Where's your intellectual honesty? Go figure it out and then let us know what you come up with, not those ridiculous theories that don't work.
myth and fantasy are awesome! long live star wars, matrix, spiderman, and the avengers! symbolic tales that reveal universal truths have always been and will always be needed by society to grow and strengthen.
@sethecx people have been doing that for 2000 years now. Dawkins' got all his arguments from other people and are becomng less and less popular in the Academic Field. the God debate hasn't changed in 2000 years. theists become atheists, atheists become theists. its all the same. wise people question others beliefs because they question their own, dumb people...because other people's beliefs are simply different than theirs. people have known this for ages.
@sethecx and the sad thing about it is that he made people atheist by using pseudo-logic and cheap philosophy. he's not man enough to debate Craig and his own fellow atheist say so, he can't even defend his book. shameful.
@trickjacko Jesus stop whining. Craig is supposedly a professor of philosophy, that means when he commits fallacy after fallacy he is doing it deliberately so as to fool the audience. That is called deceit. There is no point arguing with a liar.
@EclecticSceptic when your own fellow atheist call you coward, that's the thing that I would care about and I havent seen Dr. Craig committing fallacies.
@trickjacko I agree with EclecticSceptic, if you watch some of Craig's debates carefully and listen carefully to what he is saying you will realise that a number of his arguments are quite flawed ...
@xSnapper26x I mean, his argument is just silly (EclecticSceptic's), tell me, why not even one single fellow philosopher of Dr. Craig accuses him of committing fallacies?? or why any of his opponents do such claims during a debate? only you guys dare to do this and if this is so overwhelming and so true, why I don't see people acussing Dr. Craig of fallacious and stuff?
Rather I see a lot of atheist calling Professor Dawkins a COWARD.
This is the only kind of attack his opponents have left: Trying to make him dull. Dawkins is defending the truth against superstition. If you believe in God, the Easter Bunny or Zeus you will probably be offended by Dawkins. But he is right! Noone has offered any (real) argument to the contrary. :) I will not bow before Allah, God or Thor unless hard evidence for their existence can be offered. And evidence for their goodness as well. If a god should exist, but be evil, I will reject him/her.
I really don't see the appeal in Richard Dawkins, if he had stuck to evolutionary biology he may have left a legacy worth noting, instead of a legacy where he is noted as the cowardly atheist.
@SPR4GOD Yeah you're probalbly correct about how history will view him. His use of straw man interviews that he controls the editing of while running from proper debate with the likes of William Lane Craig & Dinesh D'Sousa. Instead he simply hurls personal attacks at them further drawing into question his ability to defend his arguments that even Atheist Scholars have refuted.
@RationalConclusion Well he could have been known as a good evolutionary biologist; but he has made a bigger scene outside of biology, and that wasn’t the best thing for him. He got trounced by Dr. Lennox, won't debate Dr. Craig and his book (the God Delusion) is an insult to undergraduates.
@SPR4GOD I disagree. I think he'll be remembered as a great evolutionary biologist and he'll be recognised for the Selfish Gene above all else. It's only in recent years that he's been speaking up against religion and belief in god. I'm interested to know where and when Dawkins was 'trounced' by Lennox. I must have missed that one. Dawkins reason for not debating Craig is that he no longer debates creationists because it gives the illusion that the creation side has some validity.
@RationalConclusion It was in the debate: has science buried god? The argumentation was very sporadic and off topic from Richard Dawkins. Even if Dr. Craig was a down right 6000 year creationist (which he is not) the topic is not based on creationism. The topic is theology. Imagine if theologians said they wouldn't debate atheists because they did not want to show that atheism has validity? Also not debating creationists is surprisingly silly, why isn't it a valid theory to debate?
@SPR4GOD For the same reasons that we don't debate the existence of fairies, fire breathing dragons, elves and unicorns isn't a valid theory to debate.
@RationalConclusion Then it should be easy then, if god is another entity on the list that contains: Santa, elves, dragons, the Easter bunny and unicorns. The problem though, is that it is not so easy because theists actually can make compelling arguments.
@RationalConclusion There are the Cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral arguments and arguments from history. I have never seen the Easter bunny given as many arguments as god. When you thresh out the logic behind the arguments, they are far superior then their alternative.
@SPR4GOD They're certainly arguments. As to whether or not they're compelling is subjective. So far I haven't found any argument for the existence of any god compelling. I see no more reason to believe in the existence of a god than any of the other things I have mentioned. In fact, I'd say a god is far more unlikely to exist than those other things.
@RationalConclusion Sure I would conclude that it is silly to out rightly deny the existence of dragons, elves or unicorns somewhere else in the universe. I just don't see how someone can conclude that The God Delusion arguments are better than that of say Dr. Craig. (That is if you do see it that way).
@SPR4GOD If you genuinly care about whether what you believe is true and you use reliable evidence as your yardstick then Dawkins arguments make perfect sense. The only arguments I see are god of the gaps arguments. There's never seems to be any actual evidence for the existence of any of these supposed gods. Craig is a good speaker and a charismatic guy who is good at arguing but I've never seen him make a convincing case for the existence of a god.
@RationalConclusion I don't see it that way. An appeal to ignorance over universal complexity doesn't disprove god (as RD would say: god probably doesn't exist), and his central argument doesn't even touch things like the moral argument and historicity if Jesus' resurrection. At best his argument could call into question the teleological argument.
@SPR4GOD Dawkins has never said that anything disproves god. He just says that the existence of a god is very unlikely and I agree with him.
Morality is not evidence for a god, least of all the christian one. There's no good reason to believe that jesus was resurrected, was the son of a god, was born of a virgin or performed miracles. The reason why Dawkins didn't talk about his supposed historocity is probably because the book is aimed at all gods. You can ask him yourself via email.
@RationalConclusion The book is largely RD personal thoughts on how religion is evil and that religious parents are child abuser. Which when you think about it, it doesn't tackle the truth validity of theism. The only thing that could be seen to do that in the God Delusion was RD's central argument (which concluded with god probably doesn't exist). However please have a look over it yourself, does it look valid?
@SPR4GOD Does what look valid? What exactly are you in disagreement with?
Dawkins central argument, or at least one of his arguments, wasn't that god doesn't exist. It was that there's no reason to believe that a god does exist.
@RationalConclusion Even if we grant the central argument as one to show that there is no reason to believe that a god exists, I don’t know how that makes the argument any more valid. (The summary of the argument is found on page 188-189)?
Do you suppose dick's little dog know's his master won't debate Craig?
shizzleman8 1 day ago
What utter crap.
AltruisticSelfishnes 2 months ago
I kept waiting for the part where Dawkins seems crazy, but it never came. I'd call this an epic fail, but it's really too childish. I pity the primate that made this.
TheViciousSquare 2 months ago
min 0:48!!! hahaha! he's a loon hahaha! and people take him serious on the God issue hahaha!
jesucristoelmesias 3 months ago
What's the theme here? Anyone know the title?
Frequency404 3 months ago
HAHA keep it up thisiscollstuff lol nice video
It goes to show how atheists are maniacs .
Wish you could ask F. Nietzsche where he spent the last years of his life...... in a mental institution!! I would not be surprised to see dawkings there sometime in the future!! lol
KingDcome11 3 months ago
Don`t all you christians believe that GOD can stick up for himself?
AClarke2007 3 months ago
@AClarke2007 don;t you believe your daddy dawkings can defend himself?
KingDcome11 3 months ago
Nice shirt.
The1hope4all 3 months ago
Dawkins book The God Delusion was torn apart by his fellow Atheist Thomas Nagel. Its clear that Dawkins does not understand the arguments no wonder he refused to show up against Craig he would have a lamb to the slaughter.
whitenightf3 3 months ago
this should teach us an important lesson: this is the side effects of atheism. lol :)
gerinja 3 months ago
i think Richard Dawkins lost his mind a long time ago. lol
brilliant video!
God bless :)
gerinja 3 months ago
0:11 - 0:15 looks like that fly isnt the only one that can find where crap comes from. :)
realistromeo 4 months ago
Go ask Alice. "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and, DARN IT, blobs of tissue like me!"
m1chae15 4 months ago
wow that was stupid, why don't you go fuckyourself thisiscoolstuff? you're a retard
enHanzable 4 months ago 14
haha that wAS FUNNY
rustydusty40 4 months ago
It's amazing how all he thinks about is something he doesn't even believe in. LOL
RespectMyHate 4 months ago 3
@RespectMyHate He may not believe in it, but the people who do tend to push their beliefs and lifestyles on others. He's doing what others are too scared to do, he's loudly questioning beliefs that are unjustly respected and given privileges.
lilredfilmgeek 3 weeks ago
@lilredfilmgeek I mean look, he wrote the god delusion, the greatest show on earth, the blind watch maker, and many more, it sounds like he's trying to push his beliefs on others also, way more then the average Christian.
take care.
RespectMyHate 3 weeks ago
@RespectMyHate The greatest show on earth focuses on biology. The other two aren't even barely enough. As an ex evangelical I understand that it may seem that the average christian doesn't push very much but they do, they also look down on atheists for no good reason, and demonize them. What Dawkin's is doing with his books is taking intelligent and critical looks at religion, and it really has to be an atheist who does it because the religious don't question beliefs critically
lilredfilmgeek 3 weeks ago
@RespectMyHate Its the result of that in which he doesn't believe in is what he thinks about....
ZionzSavior 3 weeks ago
You show a wordless video of, what I can only presume is, a photo shoot. From this you make a prejudicial statement that Dawkins is losing his mind? Your lack of creativity and argument is astounding.
dkinnibu 4 months ago
Stupid video.
toquepiano 4 months ago
so richard dawkins is hiding from willima lane craig in a grotto of statues?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
Well, at least he's not praying to the bunny statue like in some religions do and they think that's normal XD :lol: so, nah, Richard's ok........:haha:
freiheitsalv 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
is he in wonderland? like alice? :lol: jk! I love Richard ;D
freiheitsalv 4 months ago
This is a very weird video... None the less, Dawkins has shown himself to be a irrational, illogical, and inconsistent individual. Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Lennox make an absolute fool of him. Yes, Dawkins is blind and small minded to think nature is all there is, that is an atheist materialist for you... Sad.
Devin82m 5 months ago 3
@Devin82m You believe there's something other than nature?
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
@RationalConclusion Sure, just like most atheist do, except they don't seem to realize it.
Devin82m 4 months ago
@Devin82m What exactly do you believe that is outside of nature?
What do most atheists believe that is outside of nature?
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
@RationalConclusion Well for me, God of course is outside of nature. As for atheist, they believe the Big Bang, String Theory, and The World Ensemble (All supernatural fairytales). Also atheists believe in the supernatural (doesn't not occur in nature) fairytale of Abiogenesis.
Devin82m 4 months ago
@Devin82m Firstly, why do you believe in a god? Which one do you believe in?
Secondly, atheism has no tie to the big bang, string theory or abiogenesis. You can be an atheist and not believe in any of those things. What makes you think that those things are supernatural?
Thirdly, if the supernatural occured in nature it would not be called supernatural. It would be called natural. Things that appear in nature are called natural.
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
@RationalConclusion Plenty of reasons, look at my playlist on my YouTube chan to get an idea. Of course I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Also don't try the New Atheist approach it is irrational and doesn't work. If an atheist doesn't believe those things then they MUST come up with a logical and rational reason for how they came into existence. They are supernatural because they can not be observed in any way, they can not be repeated, you can only speculate.
Devin82m 4 months ago
@Devin82m So you believe that Jesus was the son of a god and atheists are irrational? That is absurd.
Atheists do not have to provide a reason for how life got here. I will however provide you with the answer which is evolution by way of natural selection.
If something cannot be obserevd or repeated that does not mean that it is supernatural. You obviously don't know what the word supernatural means.
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
@RationalConclusion Furthermore, if the source of natural creation is outside the creation then it is "supernatural" Something can't create itself, there is always beginning and eventually it must be outside the creation because there is no other layer to hide within. But of course you are trying to use a red herring, this has nothing to do with the fact that those theories are irrational and are super an atheist fairytale to explain their existence in this world. You need more faith than me.
Devin82m 4 months ago
@Devin82m If as you say 'there is always a beginning' then where did god come from?
I don't base any of my beliefs on faith. I base my beliefs on evidence. It is you who bases your beliefs on faith but I suppose you'd have to in order to believe things like virgin births, miracles, the resurrection, souls, heaven, hell, god, angels, satan etc etc.
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
@RationalConclusion Not one atom of your body consulted 'you' before they came togetther to make your body, right? There was no 'you' to consult, right? There's not one atom of your body that is not blindly obeying the Laws of Physics and Chemisty, right? So what you are saying and they are saying is thoroughly automatic, if you were them you would simply say the things they do. If you 'reason' there are no souls then you are left arguing what exactly? That you genetically superior?
allan3141 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141 I have no idea what you're talking about.
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
@RationalConclusion really?!
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 Yes. I couldn't make head nor tail of the point that you were trying to put across. Care to explain?
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a legend, people who disagree with him are delusional idiots who believe in archaic rubbish.
thedazdaryl 5 months ago
What a nonsensical video! What, in goodness name, do you mean? What is your point?
dewinthemorning 5 months ago
where is this footage from?
lazzielazzie 5 months ago
There's nothing really worth debating when it comes to religion, seeing as it is absolute nonsense regardless of what religious people have to say. I really don't understand why religious people believe what they do at all. Nevermind who cares, Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent person; religious people should be debating their beleifs for their own sake. If you can't question something then there must be something you're really afraid of, quit living in fear cowardly religious monkeys.
hyperspaceuk2012 5 months ago
@hyperspaceuk2012 Probably the reason why most religious people don't debate their beliefs is because they didn't reason themselves into their beliefs. They did not acquire their beliefs though curiously reading arguments and examining evidence like we did. They believe what they do as a result of traumatic indoctrination. Trauma physically damages and rewires the brain. (think of an EX Vietnam vet who has panic attacks and reenacts the war )This is why reason and evidence doesn't work for them.
dopejoel 4 months ago
@dopejoel "Probably the reason why most religious people don't debate their beliefs is because......."
It is Richard Dawkins who is not turning up for the debate!
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 What?
dopejoel 4 months ago
@hyperspaceuk2012 I thought it was Richard Dawkins not turning up to debate.
allan3141 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that dude is partially responsible for
atheism going through the ROOF in the 21st century! you gotta respect that.. he made people realize that they should stop for a minute and think about what they actually believe in... silly nonsense.. myth and fantasy. stupid religion.
sethecx 5 months ago 5
@sethecx What he did was sent a bunch of boys out to find the magical accident theory! He tried to say he had it and brought it to a WLC debate and lost. Now, you think that you will find it, too. Amazing, your claims that we should not believe in God and believe in the theory that you still don't have. Where's your sense? Where's your intellectual honesty? Go figure it out and then let us know what you come up with, not those ridiculous theories that don't work.
MrItchyElbow 4 months ago
@sethecx
myth and fantasy are awesome! long live star wars, matrix, spiderman, and the avengers! symbolic tales that reveal universal truths have always been and will always be needed by society to grow and strengthen.
waynie11 4 months ago
@sethecx people have been doing that for 2000 years now. Dawkins' got all his arguments from other people and are becomng less and less popular in the Academic Field. the God debate hasn't changed in 2000 years. theists become atheists, atheists become theists. its all the same. wise people question others beliefs because they question their own, dumb people...because other people's beliefs are simply different than theirs. people have known this for ages.
lightbrownpoop 4 months ago
@sethecx and the sad thing about it is that he made people atheist by using pseudo-logic and cheap philosophy. he's not man enough to debate Craig and his own fellow atheist say so, he can't even defend his book. shameful.
trickjacko 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trickjacko Jesus stop whining. Craig is supposedly a professor of philosophy, that means when he commits fallacy after fallacy he is doing it deliberately so as to fool the audience. That is called deceit. There is no point arguing with a liar.
EclecticSceptic 4 months ago
@EclecticSceptic when your own fellow atheist call you coward, that's the thing that I would care about and I havent seen Dr. Craig committing fallacies.
trickjacko 4 months ago
@trickjacko You haven't seen him commit fallacies because you aren't able.
EclecticSceptic 4 months ago
@EclecticSceptic sure
trickjacko 4 months ago
@trickjacko I agree with EclecticSceptic, if you watch some of Craig's debates carefully and listen carefully to what he is saying you will realise that a number of his arguments are quite flawed ...
xSnapper26x 4 months ago
@xSnapper26x I mean, his argument is just silly (EclecticSceptic's), tell me, why not even one single fellow philosopher of Dr. Craig accuses him of committing fallacies?? or why any of his opponents do such claims during a debate? only you guys dare to do this and if this is so overwhelming and so true, why I don't see people acussing Dr. Craig of fallacious and stuff?
Rather I see a lot of atheist calling Professor Dawkins a COWARD.
trickjacko 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the only kind of attack his opponents have left: Trying to make him dull. Dawkins is defending the truth against superstition. If you believe in God, the Easter Bunny or Zeus you will probably be offended by Dawkins. But he is right! Noone has offered any (real) argument to the contrary. :) I will not bow before Allah, God or Thor unless hard evidence for their existence can be offered. And evidence for their goodness as well. If a god should exist, but be evil, I will reject him/her.
kosefink 5 months ago
Comment removed
kosefink 5 months ago
I really don't see the appeal in Richard Dawkins, if he had stuck to evolutionary biology he may have left a legacy worth noting, instead of a legacy where he is noted as the cowardly atheist.
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD Yeah you're probalbly correct about how history will view him. His use of straw man interviews that he controls the editing of while running from proper debate with the likes of William Lane Craig & Dinesh D'Sousa. Instead he simply hurls personal attacks at them further drawing into question his ability to defend his arguments that even Atheist Scholars have refuted.
Galmozzi99 5 months ago
@Galmozzi99 that's a pretty fair summary.
allan3141 4 months ago
@SPR4GOD Just a hunch but I'm guessing you're a theist.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion That would be a good hunch. Yes I am a theist, Christian theist to be precise.
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD So you think Dawkins doesn't have a legacy worth noting and you think he's cowardly. Why?
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion Well he could have been known as a good evolutionary biologist; but he has made a bigger scene outside of biology, and that wasn’t the best thing for him. He got trounced by Dr. Lennox, won't debate Dr. Craig and his book (the God Delusion) is an insult to undergraduates.
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD I disagree. I think he'll be remembered as a great evolutionary biologist and he'll be recognised for the Selfish Gene above all else. It's only in recent years that he's been speaking up against religion and belief in god. I'm interested to know where and when Dawkins was 'trounced' by Lennox. I must have missed that one. Dawkins reason for not debating Craig is that he no longer debates creationists because it gives the illusion that the creation side has some validity.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion It was in the debate: has science buried god? The argumentation was very sporadic and off topic from Richard Dawkins. Even if Dr. Craig was a down right 6000 year creationist (which he is not) the topic is not based on creationism. The topic is theology. Imagine if theologians said they wouldn't debate atheists because they did not want to show that atheism has validity? Also not debating creationists is surprisingly silly, why isn't it a valid theory to debate?
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD For the same reasons that we don't debate the existence of fairies, fire breathing dragons, elves and unicorns isn't a valid theory to debate.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion Then it should be easy then, if god is another entity on the list that contains: Santa, elves, dragons, the Easter bunny and unicorns. The problem though, is that it is not so easy because theists actually can make compelling arguments.
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD Such as?
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion There are the Cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral arguments and arguments from history. I have never seen the Easter bunny given as many arguments as god. When you thresh out the logic behind the arguments, they are far superior then their alternative.
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD They're certainly arguments. As to whether or not they're compelling is subjective. So far I haven't found any argument for the existence of any god compelling. I see no more reason to believe in the existence of a god than any of the other things I have mentioned. In fact, I'd say a god is far more unlikely to exist than those other things.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion Sure I would conclude that it is silly to out rightly deny the existence of dragons, elves or unicorns somewhere else in the universe. I just don't see how someone can conclude that The God Delusion arguments are better than that of say Dr. Craig. (That is if you do see it that way).
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD If you genuinly care about whether what you believe is true and you use reliable evidence as your yardstick then Dawkins arguments make perfect sense. The only arguments I see are god of the gaps arguments. There's never seems to be any actual evidence for the existence of any of these supposed gods. Craig is a good speaker and a charismatic guy who is good at arguing but I've never seen him make a convincing case for the existence of a god.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion I don't see it that way. An appeal to ignorance over universal complexity doesn't disprove god (as RD would say: god probably doesn't exist), and his central argument doesn't even touch things like the moral argument and historicity if Jesus' resurrection. At best his argument could call into question the teleological argument.
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD Dawkins has never said that anything disproves god. He just says that the existence of a god is very unlikely and I agree with him.
Morality is not evidence for a god, least of all the christian one. There's no good reason to believe that jesus was resurrected, was the son of a god, was born of a virgin or performed miracles. The reason why Dawkins didn't talk about his supposed historocity is probably because the book is aimed at all gods. You can ask him yourself via email.
RationalConclusion 4 months ago
How exactly is the God Delusion an insult to undergraduates?
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion The book is largely RD personal thoughts on how religion is evil and that religious parents are child abuser. Which when you think about it, it doesn't tackle the truth validity of theism. The only thing that could be seen to do that in the God Delusion was RD's central argument (which concluded with god probably doesn't exist). However please have a look over it yourself, does it look valid?
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
@SPR4GOD Does what look valid? What exactly are you in disagreement with?
Dawkins central argument, or at least one of his arguments, wasn't that god doesn't exist. It was that there's no reason to believe that a god does exist.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion Even if we grant the central argument as one to show that there is no reason to believe that a god exists, I don’t know how that makes the argument any more valid. (The summary of the argument is found on page 188-189)?
SPR4GOD 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SPR4GOD Sorry, I don't understand.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago