@Zetrocian I really wish that the people who attack the Bible would actually read it as much as they say they do. If they did, then they would know that Jesus and his deciples warn us about people like Hitler. Instead they resort to using liars and hypocrites who merely ''claimed'' to be Christians as examples in which Christianity fails, yet they refuse to acknowledge that militant secularism has had its own terrible and bloody past. I totally agree with your comment.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your argument to me is logically flawed. Your making a false connection with Christianity and antisemitism. There are going to be people who claim to follow Christ, yet develop selfish intentions. They will change the meanings of verses to fit their desires. I really would like to see a verse in the Bible that promotes antisemitism, you know, with it being written by Jews. And do you honestly think that only religious people promote genocide and anti-semitism? you'd be wrong.
You can just SEE him wanting to shout "WHAT BULLSHIT IS THIS!" But in a public debate you have to pretend you respect your opponent's opinion, even when your opponent is someone like Lennox, who does nothing but spout one Christian platitude after another.
@janbuyck1 "Ethics are slowly shifting towards Science, since there's more and more proof that primitive primates - where we descent from - developed evolutionary morality way before there was religion or philosophy..."
We are pretty much on the same page there.
To me, ethics is applied morality. The process of rendering broad, abstract ideas about right and wrong into actual practices, is inherently more scientific than allowing some alleged authority to make a top down declaration.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The reason why christian antisemitism makes no sense is because it doesn't exist in the Bible. The conflict in Germany wasn't really Christians hating Jews, it was Germans hating Jews, much like in America, Whites hating Blacks. That's why even if your father was a full blown German-Christian yet your mother was a Jew who converted, you still according to the Nuremburg laws, were considered a Jew. And it doesn't matter where Hitler got his ideas, he knew wat he was doing.
Actually, it does, since the Bible is so vague that it enables Christians to justify any behavior by referring to it.
"it was Germans hating Jews"
What religion did the vast majority of Germans adhere to? Hint: it wasn't Buddhism.
"it doesn't matter where Hitler got his ideas"
Sure, when Christians do good you should shout their faith from the rooftops, but when a they use their faith to do bad things you should hush up about it. Right.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You do know Jesus was a Jew? His deciples, Jews as well. Paul, not only a Roman citizen, but also a Jew who killed a follower of Christ. And guess what ethnic group also wrote the Bible? I'll give you a hint, it definately wasn't ''Aryans''. So why would they write a passage that told the world that they were evil liars? They didn't. Hitler simply twisted the meaning of that verse like a good false prophet and liar would.
If you claim that Christian antisemitism makes no sense, then I wholeheartedly agree. It's silly anyway to start with to condemn a whole people just because of a few lines in some ancient holy book.
"Hitler simply twisted the meaning of that verse"
Hitler did no such thing. It has already been used by the churches for many centuries already. Hitler simply tapped into the antisemitism that was already there.
Hitler never DECLARED himself an atheist which is a big difference. But his actions showed that he was not concerned about being judge from any higher being for what he was doing.
> his hatred against the Jews was inspired by Christian doctrine.
You would need to show where in the Christian doctrine we are told to hate Jews. I certainly was never told to do so.
"Hitler never DECLARED himself an atheist which is a big difference."
Actually, Hitler believed he was carrying out the will of God by getting rid of the Jews.
"You would need to show where in the Christian doctrine we? are told to hate Jews."
Come on! Antisemitism has been rampant in Christianity throughout the centuries, in the Catholic as well as protestant churches. You might look up information about the pogroms against Jews.
Well, we have his words to go by. The German army also had "Gott Mit Uns" embossed on their belt buckles, and Nazism was a mix of Christianity, occultism and Germanic myths.
"he was a deceitful ruthless mass murderer"
A lot of Christians were, so Hitler was no exception.
"documenting this from the New Testament "
Jews were seen as "Christ-killers", and a lot of antisemitism was justified with
So you're saying that we can't trust his word because he was a mass murderer? Well then that makes you hypocritical, you would have accept his word if he declared himself an atheist. You're just trying to defend your religion because he was a mass murderer. Why would he have any reason to lie about being Christian? You can't throw out something that someone says whenever it doesn't fit your beliefs.
@2014michigan No My friend he was asking that the person's logic to think hittler wasn't a liar. Hitler wanted people as far away from churches because they would opose him. He wanted to get the hearts and minds in his control... Siding with the public's religion and opinion is the way to do it... That is why he lied...
@owensphil : so any believer who commits sins in the eye of his/her belief is an Atheist?
I thought Atheism ment: accepting there's no proof of the existance of any deïty.
What higher moral values does christianity have compared to atheistic moral values?
Isn't is thanks to Humanists (most of them Agnosts/Atheïsts) since the 16th century that plain citizens are treated in a better way on social, economic and human-rights level in Europe, the US and the rest of the inspired Western world?
Lennox' statements about "atheistic regimes" are extremely problematic. Secular governments CAN be totalitarian, but religious regimes are totalitarian BY DEFINITION. You cannot have democracy and freedom of thought when the government forces a religion down its citizens' throats. For a government to be truly democratic is has to be secular.
What systems like Stalinism share with religions is their irrational dogmatism, which in turn leads to totalitarianism when used to govern a country.
Lennox doesn't seem to grasp that evolution can be seen as a bottom-up design process. The interactions at the lowest level are comparatively simple chemical reactions, leading to ever-increasing complexity as the number of interactions goes up. A top-down approach would keep these interactions at a minimum, yet this is not what we see in living systems. Evolutionary theory predicts that nature just goes with what works, however unwieldy, and this is exactly what we see.
@Valanor1 "Ethics is a field of philosophy not science."
Philosophy is a sub discipline of science since it claims to have explanatory value.
" nature itself alludes to the attributes of God. "
You are just attaching the label "god" to natural qualities and claiming this proves that there actually is a god. That's bad logic.
It is not necessary for there to be a god to explain fine tuning. Physical laws are human descriptions of nature, they are not applied legislation from an outside force.
@Terncote : Ethics are slowly shifting towards Science, since there's more and more proof that primitive primates - where we descent from - developed evolutionary morality way before there was religion or philosophy...
@Valanor1 "evil is predicated upon the notion of human beings having intrinsic value that is violated when a person is harmed."
Evil is a value judgement, not an objective / intrinsic state of being.
"Physicalism cannot provide for the truism of intrinsic human dignity therefore it cannot adequately provide a foundation for morality."
Again, more value judgements parading as self evident truths. You can't create truth simply be declaring it to be so. You don't have a monopoly on truth.
"It is strange, some people are searching for a way to explain what they want to be true, while others are in search of what is true." - DjCosmicRush
In 500 characters to persons likely hostile to any evidence I might present therein? Please be real.
However, if you are sincerely interested in the evidence for a deity free reality, you are in the right place. YouTube is replete with informative video essays on all the relevant issues and science.
@GaryLyons "If atheism were true, there would be no good or evil, so atheists have no foundation to be morally outraged at anything."
Excuse me? A) that's simply poor reasoning. B) You are straw-manning (again), imposing your own fallacious version of atheism and genetics to argue against, instead of understanding and addressing the actual position of atheism / agnosticism.
You could also take some time to learn about the sciences you believe you are refuting.
evil is predicated upon the notion of human beings having intrinsic value that is violated when a person is harmed. Physicalism cannot provide for the truism of intrinsic human dignity therefore it cannot adequately provide a foundation for morality. Ethics is a field of philosophy not science.
@GaryLyons "..yes morality is inherit to human beings because God put it there... A conscience is impossible to have in a purely material universe with no God."
That's an empty claim.
It is quite easy for human morality to emerge naturally. We see morality in all social creatures. Like our other physical, mental and emotional characteristics, moral behaviour is adaptive, it benefits the species and is therefore selected for.
@Terncote materialism strictly cannot provide for intrinsic human dignity which is the predicate for morality. Morality is reduced to subjectivism, there is no objective standard as a reference point for human conduct so there is no basis for moral judgement. Killing is not evil it just disagrees with a particular persons subjective feelings. For another, killing is morally agreeable. Both convictions are equally valid under materialistic world-view. This is the logical position for atheism.
@Terncote Thank you for translating my thoughts in English: that's exactly what i meant...One day ( i hope) antropologists may find the proof that religion is something created by our ancestors and not vice-versa. Some of the possible reasons why primitive humans created religion might be the same as most modern humans have now: fear of dying and fear of the unknown. Morality can be explained by : avoiding pain and securing transmission of genetic information
@GaryLyons "Science now knows that the universae had a beginning. This proves God."
We know that our perceivable universe apparently originated with the big bang but there is no proof that ours is the only such manifestation. Nor can we say what the ultimate origin of big bangs may be.
It is premature to conclude a deity was responsible. Despite the specious insistence of W.L. Craig et al, inventing a being who needs no beginning is just a cop out, not any sort of viable answer.
@Terncote nature itself alludes to the attributes of God. The eternality of the mind of God to pre-conceive the universe and actualise it. Rather than a mindless, spontaneous concourse of random events. Even the laws of the universe are calibrated finely to permit life, they require the lawgiver.
@Terncote no, this doesn't proof God. It only states that the universe had a beginning. On the question who provoced the beginning, the answer is: "WE DON'T KNOW"
What a bout attrocities by Muslims ( also religious), Catholics an Orthodox in former yugoslavia ( only 10 to 15 years ago), Catholic and protestand Irish in Northern-Ireland ( they only have an unstable truce since few years ago)?....
@GaryLyons "You see, science has proven God and His Word to be true, and disproved the lie of atheism and macro-evolution."
Really? Got a citation for that? What journal were the findings published in? When? Who did the peer review? Can you provide the data set and the protocols?
@Terncote ~well I have no such thing, but what I do have is what scientific findings say. Science now knows that the universae had a beginning. This proves God. Because since the universe had a beginning, that means that all time, matter & space came into existence. And everything that comes into being is caused by something outside of itself. So the only explanation for the universe's existence is that something timeless, immaterial & spaceless caused it to exist (see Genesis 1:1)
These videos are in no way objective. You just play Mr. I believe in invisible Gods idiotic statements, and don't play Dawkins rebuttals, as to avoid being butt hurt idiots.
@cohdee01 "He not only gets satisfaction from the fact that His creation is good but that His creation can & has the ability to give Him glory & some of them actually choose to."
This argument always makes Jehovah sound like a petulant child expecting more from his toys than they are capable of and breaking them in protest at their inadequacy.
@jt2145 "god damnit why'd you cut out richard dawkins response, i wanted to see him destroy this dude"
Good point.
Why would a theist manipulate evidence and engage in misrepresentation? With Jehovah on your side you'd think that the truth would be more than sufficient.
@jt2145 because if they showed him talk it'd be fair...thus the truth would be too apparent. creationists are clinging to their myth and will use such petty tactics til the bitter end.
@jt2145 ..the entire debate is available on-line, I saw it in its entirety, just look for it on youtube. And by the way Dawkins got defeated handily in this debate.
@MrMatthewRice ...sorry my friend, but you are mistaken, you see, John Lennox has something on his side, it is called the truth. So Richard Dawkins really had no chance to start. God bless! :)
@GaryLyons No, I'm sorry my friend, but you're mistanken, you see, Richard Dawkins has something on his side, it's called hundreds of years of scientific EVIDENCE and RESEARCH,that shreds every word of the bible into pieces. Science=I don't know, let's find out, Religion=I don't know, must be an invisible man, let's leave it at that, and get back to owning slaves and making sure gay people don't get married, and making sure my wife obeys my every command, and selling my daughter as a sex slave.
@MrMatthewRice ...sorry my friend, but you are deceived. You see, science has proven God and His Word to be true, and disproved the lie of atheism and macro-evolution. But mankind desperately holds on to these lies and even call these lies "science" in order to ease their conscience and justify the sin and evil they love. Jesus was so right in John 7:7 - 'The world hates Me because I testify that what it does is evil."
@MrMatthewRice ...the very fact that you claim there is evil proves God exists. You see? If atheism were true, there would be no good or evil, so atheists have no foundation to be morally outraged at anything. Because after all, we are all just matter and DNA with no purpose and exist only be chance and necessity ...correct? So thank you, for admitting you believe in God. Now only if we can get you to admith that mankind is evil and in need of a Savior, His name, Jesus Christ :)
@GaryLyons My Dear Man: Morality is inherent to humans... Religion only lend it and abuses it only for it's own very unmoral reason : Power, money, supression, ...
@janbuyck1 ..yes morality is inherit to human beings because God put it there, it is called a conscience. A conscience is impossible to have in a purely material universe with no God. And you are right about religion, God hates religion too. Relious people also hate Jesus Christ, that is what the religious people of His day wanted Him crucifed. Praise God that salvation is not found in any religion, but only in Jesus Christ. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, there is no other way
@GaryLyons : I'm afraid that's wishfull thinking. The myth of Jesus was put in it's relative definite form about 1600 years ago ( some stories even accepted or rejected by voting... ), the Judean Old testament ( on witch the new testament is based) was written somewhere between 2300 and 3000 years ago, Chinese religion is older then 3000 years. There is paleontological evidence that primitive humans had social structures more then 300.000 years ago. Even chimps and bonobo's have moral code's...
@janbuyck1 ~truth is what it is no matter who believes what. And the truth will apply to all of humanity no matter what lie anyone chooses to embrace. Atheists choose to embrace the lie they do because they want to justify their sins when even their conscience testifies againt them in agreement with God. 10 out of 10 people die, and you will be dead alot longer then you are on this earth in this body. ~ "It is appointed for man toi die once, then the judgement." (Hebrews 9:27)
@GaryLyons No, my dear friend, Thruth is not a matter of choice what we believe in, it's pure facts. It's not because someone believes in a deity that therefore it exists. Atheist dont choose to embrace a lie, but constantly search for the thruth. We don't look to justifie sins. I think you confuse atheism with anarchy. I personaly live al life which, according to christian ethics, is highly close, even more: most christians i know don't live as pure as i do...
@janbuyck1 ..indeed you are right, truth isn't what we wish were true, truth just is. Truth is absolute, and truth, by its very nature is quite intolerant of error. If atheists truly searched for the truth, then they would find Him. For Jeremiah 29:13 is truth - "You will search for Me and you will find Me, if you search for Me with all your heart." ~ Atheists are afraid of the truth, so they embrace a convenient lie, a lie that eases their conscience and justifies their sins.
@GaryLyons I'm afraid you're wrong again on that level. The only real truth are proven facts, like 1+1=2 or 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,..... are prime numbers, etc.... There is no factual proof of the existance Jesus Christ or any deïty...
@MrMatthewRice ..Indeed, believing in fairy tales is pathetic. And are you not the one who believes a frog became a prince? And this, even without the assistance of a princess' kiss? Believing in fairy tales is indeed pathetic. God bless you!
@GaryLyons strange: we grow out of the most of the fairy tales they tell us when we're litlle... but some don't seem to be able to grow out of all of them...
@jt2145 That's exactly why they didn't play it. Because Dawkins would've destroyed this guy, and the person who uploaded these videos has an obvious bias for this Lennox guy, hence why they didn't show Dawkins response.
Just to make it clear, even if just to a few people who see this video, the only person being spanked here is Lennox. I watched the entire debate, and Dawkins talks absolute, undeniable sense, while Lennox completely misses the point on numerous occasions, and presents arguments that are so utterly ridden with hypocrisies and colossal logical flaws that it's clear he's nowhere near intelligent enough to make even a reasonable attempt at defending an opinion that's outdated in the first place.
@malithe00 "I found the imbecilic comment by Terncote "I.D. is highly improbable.." to be funny, imbecilic, but funny. LOL"
Then you will be able to tell us exactly what was wrong with it, rather than simply sling mud and reveal your continued ignorance of biology in general, genetics in particular and science in spades!
But since you consider "ghey" jokes to be the height of rhetoric I won't hold my breath awaiting a cogent reply.
@ECHOxDINGO "I would gladly debate you, if I thought you could present any logical, conceivable argument without having to get angry and full of hot air. Seriously, people like you should be kept in padded cells. I'll listen to intellectuals, not angry, petty little men like you."
The needle on my Irony Meter bent testing this one. You owe me a new one!
(For the benefit of ECHOx - the irony being that your largely incoherent statement is puffed up with angry invective.)
The nit-wits who believe that testicles and ovaries created themselves are the delusional ones LOL I found the imbecilic comment by Terncote "I.D. is highly improbable.." to be funny, imbecilic, but funny. LOL
@FlyMacFish "God is eternal. He chose to create the universe..." You are free to disagree with this position, but it is coherent. It does not go against reason."
If Jehovah can be eternal so can a universe beyond the big bang. Theists can't just claim eternity by slapping a silly bronze age name on it!
Any quality or characteristic you can claim for Jehovah I can claim for the naturalistic mechanistic universe, with equal coherence. You are engaging in irrelevant word play. Pure semantics.
@psford1 "You do not have the brain power to independently and definitvely conclude that Intelligent Design is impossible."
Perhaps because it's not impossible...
...it's just highly improbable, given that everything we observe, every piece of data, every fossil and every gene fits perfectly within the naturalistic model. There are no fossils out of place, no genes that shouldn't be there. If there was a creator they covered their tracks masterfully, creating a perfect illusion of naturalism.
@malithe00 Oh yes. Such an intelligent comeback. Calling me gay because of my handle on youtube. Oh no. I'm so hurt in my stomach. HA HA HA! What a totally retarded douchebag fucktard. Oh and if I WAS gay, I'd be ok with it. So you fail on all counts. Especially as a human being :) Why don't you and psford1 BOTH go get those lobotomies. It couldn't make either of you less retarded.
@mcmanustony I'm not good at this and you dont understand simple concepts. Tell me, is conveying information somehow creating it? If the transfer of information, such as with honeybees, is your best counter argument you may as well not respond. All life uses/transfers information. My original argument/claim/point was how information, a non-material, could be created by material beings. Honeybees dont create info, nor does anything else in the universe - except humans (according to many).
@keyguy13 Oh, and Darwin was agnostic too, you know that? So actually someone can believe what they like about a 'God'. What matters is how you live your life, and its silly little people like you who think their petty opinions hold any sort of authority that create the problems in this world. So grow up little man.
@ECHOxDINGO You're a joke. It's actually quite refreshing to know you don't agree with my opinion. If a total fucktard like yourself agreed with me, I would have to reassess my conclusions. Thanks for being the complete imbecile you are.
@ECHOxDINGO The fact that you have to call me a silly little person in order to 'make your point' just shows your arrogance and self-righteousness. It also show your frustration at not actually being able to make a valid point. So what if Darwin was agnostic? That actually adds to my esteem for the man. He was always questioning and looking and trying to find the answers. Unlike religious sheep who just have faith in what some pedophile told them to believe. Wake up dummy.
@keyguy13 You're the most interesting person I met on Youtube. Hypocrite, pathetic, and you like to accuse me of what I haven't said and done. And so what if I call you a silly little man? Does that make me self-righteous? HAHA. I would gladly debate you, if I thought you could present any logical, conceivable argument without having to get angry and full of hot air. Seriously, people like you should be kept in padded cells. I'll listen to intellectuals, not angry, petty little men like you.
@keyguy13 But i hope you're going to keep accusing me of things I didnt say, do, or think. It shows your own sad lack of understanding. It's okay if you don't understand how a debate works, you know? These things are above the heads of some people. So quit your whining and complaining, your opinion has no sway, just the facts. In the end, we cannot prove God either way, so stop being so incredibly dumb and claiming a 'God' definitely doesnt exist. Heard of agnosticism? Much more logical.
@keyguy13 At no point did you use logic and reason. You're just an arrogant little man. I don't much care for your opinions, I prefer the facts. And those are, if you perhaps WATCH the debate, that Lennox does actually make more valid arguments, and leaves Dawkins floundering. If you're too short sighted or biased yourself to see that, it's your problem.I didn't whine, I stated my point. You resort to swearing to get your points across, showing how emotionally undeveloped you actually are. Pity.
@ECHOxDINGO You amuse me. I'm actually laughing out loud because I can just picture your little red face all bunched up as you type feverishly. Your little tantrums don't change the fact that Lennox is a total idiot who got owned by Dawkins. The fact that the best you can do is complain about my swearing and make suggestions about my emotional maturity instead of actually debating me, shows that you have no valid answers, are stupid, and have nothing to say.
@keyguy13 I have a few questions for you. 1.what are you talking about? 2.I have never commented on this video, so are you responding to another comment of mine? 3.I havn't commented on these videos in a while, so did you scroll to find my comment?
You said "@JusBenLawyered your right to say that what they did wasn't in the name of Atheism, but they did do things in the name of what they called ''reason'' to abolish all religious beleifs that placed more faith in gods and deities than in the state."
Absolute truth is God. That is all the theist can say. If scientists say this is a fact, only god will know if it is absolutely true or not. What use of a concept is that?? Useless. And the bible being the word of god would be an example of absolute truth. Where in the bible is there one example of absolute truth? No human could find one, or write one as absolute truth is a nonsense concept that is incompatible with the human existence.
@keyguy13 I don't think this widely published, well-known intellectual Lennox lacks intellectual skills, is or reasoning in a circle, as you assert without a shred of evidence. I think you just like to root for Richard Dawkins, and somewhat childishly can't accept the idea that there could be real weaknesses in Dawkins' own position. There are weaknesses in both positions. No philosophical position is airtight - despite what so many YouTube "rooters" want to think.
@mattcarolan I will admit my bias towards Dawkins. It doesn't change the fact that Lennox's conclusions are faulty and therefore his rationale is suspect. The man thinks Jesus rose from the dead. His thought processes are flawed.
@keyguy13 I love people like you. You come in all angry, full of hot air, determined to get your point across because only you could possibly be right. Perhaps you need to take a look from a neutral position like I have done. I'm not saying I agree with Lennox, but only a fool would claim Dawkins beat him in 'every conceivable way'. Dont disgrace yourself by coming on Youtube just for a rude argument, you pathetic little man.
@ECHOxDINGO LOL! And that's not what you're doing right now? I was responding to the same kind of self-righteousness that you're talking about. And no you didn't come from a neutral position. You came in with a bias just like all of us did. At least we're honest about it. Don't whine like a little bitch just because someone else has an opinion. And my opinion is that Dawkins beat him in every conceivable way. The fact that logic and reason back up my opinion is what frustrates you.
@Pendu068 What video did YOU watch? Cause it certainly wasn't this one. Dawkins owned Lennox. Plain and simple. The only embarrassment he felt was for how stupid Lennox's responses were.
@Mirrodin82 Wow. Watching you two argue is like watching a couple of old people trying to bitch slap each other. Neither is equipped to do it and it's funny as hell
@jesselee34 Yes because he wasn't searching for Dawkins/Lennox debate. He saw the title Dawkins pubicly (yes that's pubic not public) spanked again, and thought that he was going to see dawkins get spanked, a reasonable assumption. But instead we all get to see a poorly edited statement made out of context. So yeah, we ALL missed him getting spanked, because he never GOT spanked :) Watch the video and and see how someone truly gets owned. Dawkins delivers :)
@MegaWarsaw OK so this is sort of true. many people are indoctrinated, and I agree with Dawkins that this is a bad idea. However, there are many of us who just grow up and stop believing the fairy tale. We use our brains, think and deduce that the delusion we've been fed is just stupid. Like when we figured out there wasn't a santa claus.
@keyguy13 I hate when people say they 'used their brain' and made an intelligent choice to no longer believe the 'fairy tale'. Thats asinine. You do not have the brain power to independently and definitvely conclude that Intelligent Design is impossible. What you have is the opinion of those smarter than you that you accept as fact and argue for (religious). Intelligent Design cannot be refuted, just as Evolutionary Theory cannot be verified empirically. Maybe you should ACTUALLY use your brain.
@psford1 No. believing in santa claus is asinine. And I do have the brain power to independently and definitively conclude that Intelligent design is impossible. That's why I am an atheist living an empowered life of personal responsibility and accountability, not one of superstition, nonsense and victim-hood. I'll fight and debate your god any day of the week. All you have to do is produce him/her/it.
@keyguy13 Dont bring 'my god' into this as I have not ever mentioned a belief in any entity to you. A belief in Santa Claus being asinine is relative. To a kid, it's not stupid. It brings them some degree of happiness - and furthermore it doesnt seriously impact their lives. Just like a belief in ID vs. ET. You can believe in ID and still believe in evolution, and go to school, and whatever else you want. ET & ID are completely relative. We should all be able to believe what we want.
@youtubian2500 No. I too found it funny that this moron can't spell 'publicly' and that the resultant phrase sounds more like he got dick slapped :) What's even funnier is that this video shows none of that :)
@psford1 That is ridiculous. Where do you get this crap? So you're saying that other species don't communicate with each other? Thereby relaying information? Practically EVERY species on the planet does this. You're retarded.
@keyguy13 Genius - communication is NOT the creation of information. So if I'm retarded what does that make you? The transfer of information is of no contest. It's the creation of a non-material item that is the concern. Do not enter this conversation if you have nothing useful to add (as it appears you dont).
@psford1 You're so fucking stupid you don't even know what information is. Communication is of course information. Are you really that stupid? If I speak and say "Psford1 is an utter moron", I have created information. It's non-material. It's redundant, yes, because everyone already knows it, but yes, it's information. Just like when my dog barks and scratches the door, he has relayed information to me that he created. You should get that lobotomy.
@keyguy13 ANIMALS do not create information, ever, except humans. I dont know how you confused this idea from my original post. Humans can create information - thats what I said. And apparently you agree with that. No other animals on this planet can create information. Relaying/passing information is not the same as creating it. These are very simple ideas, I dont see how you're not understanding that. With animals, they can only pass info that's already present ie.Your dog already had to pee.
@psford1 Look, for the last time: Evolution is fact. The fine points, that you didn't even read nor do you obviously understand, are arguable. It's called a theory to be scientifically correct. In reality, that's how life occurred here. Stop trying to disprove it just by saying you don't believe it. It happened. Get over it.
@malithe00 That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. The fact that you are a christian that actually believes this and stated it shows how "unethical" you are. You christians can do whatever the hell you want (and often do) and can go to confession and be "forgiven". You have "god" as an excuse and as a way to not be accountable for your actions. I'll take my atheism and the empowerment I get from being responsible for my own life over your pathetic subservience.
The idea of god can truly be debated, but the christian god, the jewish god and the muslim god etc. have been debunked, they are primitive caveman-explanations for the world, and they are now obsolete..... Evolution explains how life evolved here on Earth, but still a mystery is the the creation of all matter, in the beginning of the universe (if there is one). Science says "we do not know yet", and religions arrogantly claim that a personified god did it... really, we do not know... yet.
As usual, a video from a theist that does not show a rebuttal. How can you claim a "spanking" when we don't see Hawkins. You present a false statement.
@owensphil First, it is not "anti" theist. It's just like when pro-choice is called pro-abortion. It is wrong. Second, the atheist debates that I watch show the theist side. In order to determine who won any debate, both sides must be shown. If you want to make a reasonable and rational claim, you should be showing what is being debated. I watched the entire debate and it was far from your choice of words.
@TheMte1000 The problem is that we have these multiple sh*tty contradicting theories about everything but the truth is we dont ever see the 0's and 1's that the reality consist of. No matter how far we explain technical details how all works we have no frigging idea how this happened in the first place. If you have feeling you do know the answer, think again. We dont even know in physical terms what is movement. We just know how it works. Theres not a single theory wtf this all is.
@StardustSpaceMonkey So what you are saying is to hell with all of our scientific data and go with feelings? Instead of searching for scientific facts, we should just throw up our hands and say that a mystical person that noone has ever seen did it all. Now that's a good argument. Let's all turn off our brains because god will give us the answers. How long are we to wait? It's already been a few thousand years.
@TheMte1000 No, Im not saying that. I think science is very much usefull to us. It answers greatly to "how things work" questions but if we think we can jump to conclusions by percieving how our universe works then its your choice but it doesn't explain sh*t about fundamental things. No I dont believe in bible or any theistic views. I'm just not stupid enough to think we have the answers. There can be and probably is some sh*t so far beoynd our monkey brains ability to comprehend.
@lifeschild1 hahaha, your a moron!, Lennox clearly destroys Dawkins on every level!, and hes only using rationality, and pure logic!, i think your beinga typical atheist and simply ignoring Dawkins awkward fumblings as his arguments are torn down.
@85Aheadstix Congratulate yourself with virtuous, virtual applause of dissemination. Your stupidity is quite apparent since your comment lacks meaning. Your futile attempt to try to integrate intellectual superiority together with comprehensive thought leaves you void of capacity and mental acuity. Lennox says nothing at all of contextual value when listened to intently. Dawkins is a biologist who can not expiate or dictate the necessary tone to quantify debate success.
@lifeschild1 You are way to smart to be involved with these petty little videos! You have to dumb it down a bit or the theists heads will explode. You make my arguments sound pedestrian. I am envious. Good work.
@TheMte1000 Thank you for your comment. I am very involved in the plight against polytheism and multicultural faiths. You should be as well. Theism, in any form, is the indelible mind altering wedge, which separates the mass populations of the world. Religion and its diversified cults of unalterable thinking, is the causation of most of the civil unrest in our world. Religions' pr
you cut off dawkins's responses.
i don't think you understand the meaning of a debate.. how cute.
SuperVaisefoder 12 minutes ago
Another shit vid without dawkins answers
yahoopig 20 minutes ago
Where can I see Dawkins' part of the debate?
rikilii 20 hours ago
@Zetrocian I really wish that the people who attack the Bible would actually read it as much as they say they do. If they did, then they would know that Jesus and his deciples warn us about people like Hitler. Instead they resort to using liars and hypocrites who merely ''claimed'' to be Christians as examples in which Christianity fails, yet they refuse to acknowledge that militant secularism has had its own terrible and bloody past. I totally agree with your comment.
rurouni152 23 hours ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your argument to me is logically flawed. Your making a false connection with Christianity and antisemitism. There are going to be people who claim to follow Christ, yet develop selfish intentions. They will change the meanings of verses to fit their desires. I really would like to see a verse in the Bible that promotes antisemitism, you know, with it being written by Jews. And do you honestly think that only religious people promote genocide and anti-semitism? you'd be wrong.
rurouni152 1 day ago
Comment removed
rurouni152 1 day ago
Imagine this guy debating with Christopher Hitchens.
Hitch would humiliate him.
sinistergnr 2 days ago
@sinistergnr
> Imagine this guy debating with Christopher Hitchens.
Hitch would humiliate him.
Not quite. You obviously haven´t their debate.
owensphil 2 days ago
@owensphil I "haven't their debate"?
sinistergnr 2 days ago
Dawkins looks frustrated :P
spider9243 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spider9243
"Dawkins looks frustrated"
You can just SEE him wanting to shout "WHAT BULLSHIT IS THIS!" But in a public debate you have to pretend you respect your opponent's opinion, even when your opponent is someone like Lennox, who does nothing but spout one Christian platitude after another.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@janbuyck1 "Ethics are slowly shifting towards Science, since there's more and more proof that primitive primates - where we descent from - developed evolutionary morality way before there was religion or philosophy..."
We are pretty much on the same page there.
To me, ethics is applied morality. The process of rendering broad, abstract ideas about right and wrong into actual practices, is inherently more scientific than allowing some alleged authority to make a top down declaration.
Terncote 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The reason why christian antisemitism makes no sense is because it doesn't exist in the Bible. The conflict in Germany wasn't really Christians hating Jews, it was Germans hating Jews, much like in America, Whites hating Blacks. That's why even if your father was a full blown German-Christian yet your mother was a Jew who converted, you still according to the Nuremburg laws, were considered a Jew. And it doesn't matter where Hitler got his ideas, he knew wat he was doing.
rurouni152 4 days ago
@rurouni152
"it doesn't exist in the Bible."
Actually, it does, since the Bible is so vague that it enables Christians to justify any behavior by referring to it.
"it was Germans hating Jews"
What religion did the vast majority of Germans adhere to? Hint: it wasn't Buddhism.
"it doesn't matter where Hitler got his ideas"
Sure, when Christians do good you should shout their faith from the rooftops, but when a they use their faith to do bad things you should hush up about it. Right.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You do know Jesus was a Jew? His deciples, Jews as well. Paul, not only a Roman citizen, but also a Jew who killed a follower of Christ. And guess what ethnic group also wrote the Bible? I'll give you a hint, it definately wasn't ''Aryans''. So why would they write a passage that told the world that they were evil liars? They didn't. Hitler simply twisted the meaning of that verse like a good false prophet and liar would.
rurouni152 5 days ago
@rurouni152
"You do know Jesus was a Jew?"
If you claim that Christian antisemitism makes no sense, then I wholeheartedly agree. It's silly anyway to start with to condemn a whole people just because of a few lines in some ancient holy book.
"Hitler simply twisted the meaning of that verse"
Hitler did no such thing. It has already been used by the churches for many centuries already. Hitler simply tapped into the antisemitism that was already there.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
Hitler was not an atheist, and his hatred against the Jews was inspired by Christian doctrine.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
> Hitler was not an atheist
Hitler never DECLARED himself an atheist which is a big difference. But his actions showed that he was not concerned about being judge from any higher being for what he was doing.
> his hatred against the Jews was inspired by Christian doctrine.
You would need to show where in the Christian doctrine we are told to hate Jews. I certainly was never told to do so.
owensphil 5 days ago 3
@owensphil
"Hitler never DECLARED himself an atheist which is a big difference."
Actually, Hitler believed he was carrying out the will of God by getting rid of the Jews.
"You would need to show where in the Christian doctrine we? are told to hate Jews."
Come on! Antisemitism has been rampant in Christianity throughout the centuries, in the Catholic as well as protestant churches. You might look up information about the pogroms against Jews.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
> Actually, Hitler believed he was carrying out the will of God by getting rid of the Jews.
Because Hitler said so right? I mean just because he was a deceitful ruthless mass murderer doesn´t mean he was a liar. Is this your logic?
> Come on! Antisemitism has been rampant in Christianity throughout the centuries...
Then you should have no trouble documenting this from the New Testament the basis of all Christian doctrine.
owensphil 5 days ago 2
@owensphil
"Because Hitler said so right? "
Well, we have his words to go by. The German army also had "Gott Mit Uns" embossed on their belt buckles, and Nazism was a mix of Christianity, occultism and Germanic myths.
"he was a deceitful ruthless mass murderer"
A lot of Christians were, so Hitler was no exception.
"documenting this from the New Testament "
Jews were seen as "Christ-killers", and a lot of antisemitism was justified with
Matthew 27:25.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
@owensphil
So you're saying that we can't trust his word because he was a mass murderer? Well then that makes you hypocritical, you would have accept his word if he declared himself an atheist. You're just trying to defend your religion because he was a mass murderer. Why would he have any reason to lie about being Christian? You can't throw out something that someone says whenever it doesn't fit your beliefs.
2014michigan 1 day ago
@2014michigan No My friend he was asking that the person's logic to think hittler wasn't a liar. Hitler wanted people as far away from churches because they would opose him. He wanted to get the hearts and minds in his control... Siding with the public's religion and opinion is the way to do it... That is why he lied...
Zetrocian 1 day ago
@owensphil Nicely done!
apogee0422 12 hours ago
@owensphil : so any believer who commits sins in the eye of his/her belief is an Atheist?
I thought Atheism ment: accepting there's no proof of the existance of any deïty.
What higher moral values does christianity have compared to atheistic moral values?
Isn't is thanks to Humanists (most of them Agnosts/Atheïsts) since the 16th century that plain citizens are treated in a better way on social, economic and human-rights level in Europe, the US and the rest of the inspired Western world?
janbuyck1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"his hatred against the Jews was inspired by Christian doctrine."
Yikes! And where in "Christian Doctrine" is the teaching of hatred towards Jews?
Christianity's founder, Jesus, was a Jew. Paul, the author of most of the NT books, was a Jew - a former freaking Pharisee. Must I go on?
As spoken by the great Rod Kimble, "Hh - where do you get off?"
DanPrinMan 2 hours ago
Lennox' statements about "atheistic regimes" are extremely problematic. Secular governments CAN be totalitarian, but religious regimes are totalitarian BY DEFINITION. You cannot have democracy and freedom of thought when the government forces a religion down its citizens' throats. For a government to be truly democratic is has to be secular.
What systems like Stalinism share with religions is their irrational dogmatism, which in turn leads to totalitarianism when used to govern a country.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago 14
Comment removed
janbuyck1 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
i'm on your side, so to enhance your statement:
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ) US Physicist
janbuyck1 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I wish you can say that to him so you can be put in your place.
ceaser8999 3 days ago
@ceaser8999
"I wish you can say that to him so you can be put in your place."
I would tie Lennox in a knot within minutes. I am not a nice, meek debater like Dawkins.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 days ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
1:22
Cue the bagpipes!
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
Lennox doesn't seem to grasp that evolution can be seen as a bottom-up design process. The interactions at the lowest level are comparatively simple chemical reactions, leading to ever-increasing complexity as the number of interactions goes up. A top-down approach would keep these interactions at a minimum, yet this is not what we see in living systems. Evolutionary theory predicts that nature just goes with what works, however unwieldy, and this is exactly what we see.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bnsaints "I love wathcing Dawkins get shit stomped."
You'd better go find a video where that actually happens then because it clearly does not happen here.
Did you actually watch this video? How about the rest of the debate?
Terncote 6 days ago
@Valanor1 "Ethics is a field of philosophy not science."
Philosophy is a sub discipline of science since it claims to have explanatory value.
" nature itself alludes to the attributes of God. "
You are just attaching the label "god" to natural qualities and claiming this proves that there actually is a god. That's bad logic.
It is not necessary for there to be a god to explain fine tuning. Physical laws are human descriptions of nature, they are not applied legislation from an outside force.
Terncote 6 days ago
@Terncote : Ethics are slowly shifting towards Science, since there's more and more proof that primitive primates - where we descent from - developed evolutionary morality way before there was religion or philosophy...
janbuyck1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Valanor1 "evil is predicated upon the notion of human beings having intrinsic value that is violated when a person is harmed."
Evil is a value judgement, not an objective / intrinsic state of being.
"Physicalism cannot provide for the truism of intrinsic human dignity therefore it cannot adequately provide a foundation for morality."
Again, more value judgements parading as self evident truths. You can't create truth simply be declaring it to be so. You don't have a monopoly on truth.
Terncote 6 days ago
@Valanor1 "materialism strictly cannot provide for intrinsic human dignity which is the predicate for morality."
That's an opinion, not a fact. Morality is an adaptive behaviour for all social creatures - that IS a demonstrable fact.
"Both convictions are equally valid under materialistic world-view. This is the logical position for atheism."
Both are clearly acceptable under an Abrahamic model too, judging from the accounts of the Bible. Biblical morality is subjective too.
Terncote 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It is strange, some people are searching for a way to explain what they want to be true, while others are in search of what is true." - DjCosmicRush
olwerXL 6 days ago
@GaryLyons Whoa, I got to remember that one!
rurouni152 1 week ago
I love wathcing Dawkins get shit stomped
bnsaints 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EzekielWinnfield "Why don't you prove your beliefs?"
In 500 characters to persons likely hostile to any evidence I might present therein? Please be real.
However, if you are sincerely interested in the evidence for a deity free reality, you are in the right place. YouTube is replete with informative video essays on all the relevant issues and science.
To get you started:
watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY
watch?v=F8Nfw_LmdNU
watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0&feature=channel_video_title
Enjoy.
Terncote 1 week ago
@GaryLyons "If atheism were true, there would be no good or evil, so atheists have no foundation to be morally outraged at anything."
Excuse me? A) that's simply poor reasoning. B) You are straw-manning (again), imposing your own fallacious version of atheism and genetics to argue against, instead of understanding and addressing the actual position of atheism / agnosticism.
You could also take some time to learn about the sciences you believe you are refuting.
Terncote 1 week ago
evil is predicated upon the notion of human beings having intrinsic value that is violated when a person is harmed. Physicalism cannot provide for the truism of intrinsic human dignity therefore it cannot adequately provide a foundation for morality. Ethics is a field of philosophy not science.
Valanor1 1 week ago
@GaryLyons "..yes morality is inherit to human beings because God put it there... A conscience is impossible to have in a purely material universe with no God."
That's an empty claim.
It is quite easy for human morality to emerge naturally. We see morality in all social creatures. Like our other physical, mental and emotional characteristics, moral behaviour is adaptive, it benefits the species and is therefore selected for.
No hocus-pocus needed.
There are other ways besides the "One Way".
Terncote 1 week ago
@Terncote materialism strictly cannot provide for intrinsic human dignity which is the predicate for morality. Morality is reduced to subjectivism, there is no objective standard as a reference point for human conduct so there is no basis for moral judgement. Killing is not evil it just disagrees with a particular persons subjective feelings. For another, killing is morally agreeable. Both convictions are equally valid under materialistic world-view. This is the logical position for atheism.
Valanor1 1 week ago
@Terncote Thank you for translating my thoughts in English: that's exactly what i meant...One day ( i hope) antropologists may find the proof that religion is something created by our ancestors and not vice-versa. Some of the possible reasons why primitive humans created religion might be the same as most modern humans have now: fear of dying and fear of the unknown. Morality can be explained by : avoiding pain and securing transmission of genetic information
janbuyck1 6 days ago
@GaryLyons "Science now knows that the universae had a beginning. This proves God."
We know that our perceivable universe apparently originated with the big bang but there is no proof that ours is the only such manifestation. Nor can we say what the ultimate origin of big bangs may be.
It is premature to conclude a deity was responsible. Despite the specious insistence of W.L. Craig et al, inventing a being who needs no beginning is just a cop out, not any sort of viable answer.
Terncote 1 week ago
@Terncote nature itself alludes to the attributes of God. The eternality of the mind of God to pre-conceive the universe and actualise it. Rather than a mindless, spontaneous concourse of random events. Even the laws of the universe are calibrated finely to permit life, they require the lawgiver.
Valanor1 1 week ago
@Terncote no, this doesn't proof God. It only states that the universe had a beginning. On the question who provoced the beginning, the answer is: "WE DON'T KNOW"
janbuyck1 4 days ago
What a bout attrocities by Muslims ( also religious), Catholics an Orthodox in former yugoslavia ( only 10 to 15 years ago), Catholic and protestand Irish in Northern-Ireland ( they only have an unstable truce since few years ago)?....
janbuyck1 1 week ago
@GaryLyons "You see, science has proven God and His Word to be true, and disproved the lie of atheism and macro-evolution."
Really? Got a citation for that? What journal were the findings published in? When? Who did the peer review? Can you provide the data set and the protocols?
Terncote 1 week ago
@Terncote Why don't you prove your beliefs?
EzekielWinnfield 1 week ago
@Terncote ~well I have no such thing, but what I do have is what scientific findings say. Science now knows that the universae had a beginning. This proves God. Because since the universe had a beginning, that means that all time, matter & space came into existence. And everything that comes into being is caused by something outside of itself. So the only explanation for the universe's existence is that something timeless, immaterial & spaceless caused it to exist (see Genesis 1:1)
GaryLyons 1 week ago
These videos are in no way objective. You just play Mr. I believe in invisible Gods idiotic statements, and don't play Dawkins rebuttals, as to avoid being butt hurt idiots.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
Typical...cut out the response, thus sparing the personal butthurt.
HKOverlord117 1 week ago
@cohdee01 "He not only gets satisfaction from the fact that His creation is good but that His creation can & has the ability to give Him glory & some of them actually choose to."
This argument always makes Jehovah sound like a petulant child expecting more from his toys than they are capable of and breaking them in protest at their inadequacy.
Yeah, sounds about right.
Terncote 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jt2145 "god damnit why'd you cut out richard dawkins response, i wanted to see him destroy this dude"
Good point.
Why would a theist manipulate evidence and engage in misrepresentation? With Jehovah on your side you'd think that the truth would be more than sufficient.
Terncote 1 week ago
misleading video........... lies
mastodonseven 1 week ago
god damnit why'd you cut out richard dawkins response, i wanted to see him destroy this dude
jt2145 1 week ago 12
@jt2145 because if they showed him talk it'd be fair...thus the truth would be too apparent. creationists are clinging to their myth and will use such petty tactics til the bitter end.
SlickBlackCadillac 1 week ago
@jt2145 ..the entire debate is available on-line, I saw it in its entirety, just look for it on youtube. And by the way Dawkins got defeated handily in this debate.
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons I watched the entire debate as well, and Dawkins owned everything that tool bag said. so your wong.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice ...sorry my friend, but you are mistaken, you see, John Lennox has something on his side, it is called the truth. So Richard Dawkins really had no chance to start. God bless! :)
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons No, I'm sorry my friend, but you're mistanken, you see, Richard Dawkins has something on his side, it's called hundreds of years of scientific EVIDENCE and RESEARCH,that shreds every word of the bible into pieces. Science=I don't know, let's find out, Religion=I don't know, must be an invisible man, let's leave it at that, and get back to owning slaves and making sure gay people don't get married, and making sure my wife obeys my every command, and selling my daughter as a sex slave.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice ...sorry my friend, but you are deceived. You see, science has proven God and His Word to be true, and disproved the lie of atheism and macro-evolution. But mankind desperately holds on to these lies and even call these lies "science" in order to ease their conscience and justify the sin and evil they love. Jesus was so right in John 7:7 - 'The world hates Me because I testify that what it does is evil."
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons Hmmmm the evil that the bible itself justifies, dumdum?
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice ...the very fact that you claim there is evil proves God exists. You see? If atheism were true, there would be no good or evil, so atheists have no foundation to be morally outraged at anything. Because after all, we are all just matter and DNA with no purpose and exist only be chance and necessity ...correct? So thank you, for admitting you believe in God. Now only if we can get you to admith that mankind is evil and in need of a Savior, His name, Jesus Christ :)
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons My Dear Man: Morality is inherent to humans... Religion only lend it and abuses it only for it's own very unmoral reason : Power, money, supression, ...
janbuyck1 1 week ago
@janbuyck1 ..yes morality is inherit to human beings because God put it there, it is called a conscience. A conscience is impossible to have in a purely material universe with no God. And you are right about religion, God hates religion too. Relious people also hate Jesus Christ, that is what the religious people of His day wanted Him crucifed. Praise God that salvation is not found in any religion, but only in Jesus Christ. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, there is no other way
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons : I'm afraid that's wishfull thinking. The myth of Jesus was put in it's relative definite form about 1600 years ago ( some stories even accepted or rejected by voting... ), the Judean Old testament ( on witch the new testament is based) was written somewhere between 2300 and 3000 years ago, Chinese religion is older then 3000 years. There is paleontological evidence that primitive humans had social structures more then 300.000 years ago. Even chimps and bonobo's have moral code's...
janbuyck1 1 week ago
@janbuyck1 ~truth is what it is no matter who believes what. And the truth will apply to all of humanity no matter what lie anyone chooses to embrace. Atheists choose to embrace the lie they do because they want to justify their sins when even their conscience testifies againt them in agreement with God. 10 out of 10 people die, and you will be dead alot longer then you are on this earth in this body. ~ "It is appointed for man toi die once, then the judgement." (Hebrews 9:27)
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons No, my dear friend, Thruth is not a matter of choice what we believe in, it's pure facts. It's not because someone believes in a deity that therefore it exists. Atheist dont choose to embrace a lie, but constantly search for the thruth. We don't look to justifie sins. I think you confuse atheism with anarchy. I personaly live al life which, according to christian ethics, is highly close, even more: most christians i know don't live as pure as i do...
janbuyck1 1 week ago
@janbuyck1 ..indeed you are right, truth isn't what we wish were true, truth just is. Truth is absolute, and truth, by its very nature is quite intolerant of error. If atheists truly searched for the truth, then they would find Him. For Jeremiah 29:13 is truth - "You will search for Me and you will find Me, if you search for Me with all your heart." ~ Atheists are afraid of the truth, so they embrace a convenient lie, a lie that eases their conscience and justifies their sins.
GaryLyons 6 days ago
@GaryLyons I'm afraid you're wrong again on that level. The only real truth are proven facts, like 1+1=2 or 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,..... are prime numbers, etc.... There is no factual proof of the existance Jesus Christ or any deïty...
janbuyck1 6 days ago
@GaryLyons
"For Jeremiah 29:13 is truth"
Quoting the Bible to show that the Bible is correct is nothing but circular reasoning.
Atheists are afraid of the truth, so they embrace a convenient lie"
Ad hominem attacks! How quaint.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 days ago
@GaryLyons my dear friend i admire YOU
but you tried but must accept there are those who will not believe/trust in HIM
(psalm 53) !!!!!
god doesn't chooses everybody so you tried to give them points (very good)
but now its time to move on
im also a person who gives most people points of view of the bible en god
but you cant force en specially stubborn atheist to worship HIM who made heaven en the earth
sukruoosten 6 days ago
@GaryLyons You're silly. Grown person believing in fairy tales. How pathetic.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice ..Indeed, believing in fairy tales is pathetic. And are you not the one who believes a frog became a prince? And this, even without the assistance of a princess' kiss? Believing in fairy tales is indeed pathetic. God bless you!
GaryLyons 1 week ago
@GaryLyons strange: we grow out of the most of the fairy tales they tell us when we're litlle... but some don't seem to be able to grow out of all of them...
janbuyck1 4 days ago
@jt2145 That's exactly why they didn't play it. Because Dawkins would've destroyed this guy, and the person who uploaded these videos has an obvious bias for this Lennox guy, hence why they didn't show Dawkins response.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice Agree
janbuyck1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins cant lose...That is because everyone claiming god exists have never proven that to be the case.
Killer0fTheSun 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins cant lose...That is because everyone claiming god exists have never proven that to be the case.
Killer0fTheSun 2 weeks ago
Dawkins cant lose...That is because everyone claiming god exists have never proven that to be the case.
Killer0fTheSun 2 weeks ago
Just to make it clear, even if just to a few people who see this video, the only person being spanked here is Lennox. I watched the entire debate, and Dawkins talks absolute, undeniable sense, while Lennox completely misses the point on numerous occasions, and presents arguments that are so utterly ridden with hypocrisies and colossal logical flaws that it's clear he's nowhere near intelligent enough to make even a reasonable attempt at defending an opinion that's outdated in the first place.
BodTheGrinch 2 weeks ago 2
@BodTheGrinch ... and is filled with fallacies... ;-)
janbuyck1 4 days ago
@malithe00 "I found the imbecilic comment by Terncote "I.D. is highly improbable.." to be funny, imbecilic, but funny. LOL"
Then you will be able to tell us exactly what was wrong with it, rather than simply sling mud and reveal your continued ignorance of biology in general, genetics in particular and science in spades!
But since you consider "ghey" jokes to be the height of rhetoric I won't hold my breath awaiting a cogent reply.
Terncote 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ECHOxDINGO "I would gladly debate you, if I thought you could present any logical, conceivable argument without having to get angry and full of hot air. Seriously, people like you should be kept in padded cells. I'll listen to intellectuals, not angry, petty little men like you."
The needle on my Irony Meter bent testing this one. You owe me a new one!
(For the benefit of ECHOx - the irony being that your largely incoherent statement is puffed up with angry invective.)
Terncote 2 weeks ago
"keyguy" is the new name of those on top, apparently LOL not to be confused with "keyholeguy"
malithe00 2 weeks ago
The nit-wits who believe that testicles and ovaries created themselves are the delusional ones LOL I found the imbecilic comment by Terncote "I.D. is highly improbable.." to be funny, imbecilic, but funny. LOL
malithe00 2 weeks ago
"keyguy" is a gay moniker of some sort. I wonder what color kerchief hangs out of his back pocket? LOL
malithe00 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FlyMacFish "God is eternal. He chose to create the universe..." You are free to disagree with this position, but it is coherent. It does not go against reason."
If Jehovah can be eternal so can a universe beyond the big bang. Theists can't just claim eternity by slapping a silly bronze age name on it!
Any quality or characteristic you can claim for Jehovah I can claim for the naturalistic mechanistic universe, with equal coherence. You are engaging in irrelevant word play. Pure semantics.
Terncote 2 weeks ago
@psford1 "You do not have the brain power to independently and definitvely conclude that Intelligent Design is impossible."
Perhaps because it's not impossible...
...it's just highly improbable, given that everything we observe, every piece of data, every fossil and every gene fits perfectly within the naturalistic model. There are no fossils out of place, no genes that shouldn't be there. If there was a creator they covered their tracks masterfully, creating a perfect illusion of naturalism.
Terncote 2 weeks ago
@Terncote As irrelevant as your post is, I thank you for not saying that Intelligent Design is impossible.
The rest of your argument, the facts and opinion, is of no concern to me at this time. I understand it already.
We have nothing to argue about. Peace.
psford1 2 weeks ago
JESUS
onehndrdprcntcreep 2 weeks ago
I can see him getting "spanked" down at the same place he gets "stumped" the gay bath house. LOL
malithe00 2 weeks ago
keyguy ???Is that a gay thing? LOL
malithe00 2 weeks ago
@malithe00 Oh yes. Such an intelligent comeback. Calling me gay because of my handle on youtube. Oh no. I'm so hurt in my stomach. HA HA HA! What a totally retarded douchebag fucktard. Oh and if I WAS gay, I'd be ok with it. So you fail on all counts. Especially as a human being :) Why don't you and psford1 BOTH go get those lobotomies. It couldn't make either of you less retarded.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@mcmanustony I'm not good at this and you dont understand simple concepts. Tell me, is conveying information somehow creating it? If the transfer of information, such as with honeybees, is your best counter argument you may as well not respond. All life uses/transfers information. My original argument/claim/point was how information, a non-material, could be created by material beings. Honeybees dont create info, nor does anything else in the universe - except humans (according to many).
psford1 2 weeks ago
@psford1 tony mcanus is a real douchebag, but you probably already know that by now. LOL
malithe00 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 Oh, and Darwin was agnostic too, you know that? So actually someone can believe what they like about a 'God'. What matters is how you live your life, and its silly little people like you who think their petty opinions hold any sort of authority that create the problems in this world. So grow up little man.
ECHOxDINGO 2 weeks ago
@ECHOxDINGO You're a joke. It's actually quite refreshing to know you don't agree with my opinion. If a total fucktard like yourself agreed with me, I would have to reassess my conclusions. Thanks for being the complete imbecile you are.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@ECHOxDINGO The fact that you have to call me a silly little person in order to 'make your point' just shows your arrogance and self-righteousness. It also show your frustration at not actually being able to make a valid point. So what if Darwin was agnostic? That actually adds to my esteem for the man. He was always questioning and looking and trying to find the answers. Unlike religious sheep who just have faith in what some pedophile told them to believe. Wake up dummy.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 You're the most interesting person I met on Youtube. Hypocrite, pathetic, and you like to accuse me of what I haven't said and done. And so what if I call you a silly little man? Does that make me self-righteous? HAHA. I would gladly debate you, if I thought you could present any logical, conceivable argument without having to get angry and full of hot air. Seriously, people like you should be kept in padded cells. I'll listen to intellectuals, not angry, petty little men like you.
ECHOxDINGO 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 But i hope you're going to keep accusing me of things I didnt say, do, or think. It shows your own sad lack of understanding. It's okay if you don't understand how a debate works, you know? These things are above the heads of some people. So quit your whining and complaining, your opinion has no sway, just the facts. In the end, we cannot prove God either way, so stop being so incredibly dumb and claiming a 'God' definitely doesnt exist. Heard of agnosticism? Much more logical.
ECHOxDINGO 2 weeks ago
@ECHOxDINGO If my opinion holds no sway, why are you getting so angry? You mad?
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 At no point did you use logic and reason. You're just an arrogant little man. I don't much care for your opinions, I prefer the facts. And those are, if you perhaps WATCH the debate, that Lennox does actually make more valid arguments, and leaves Dawkins floundering. If you're too short sighted or biased yourself to see that, it's your problem.I didn't whine, I stated my point. You resort to swearing to get your points across, showing how emotionally undeveloped you actually are. Pity.
ECHOxDINGO 2 weeks ago
@ECHOxDINGO You amuse me. I'm actually laughing out loud because I can just picture your little red face all bunched up as you type feverishly. Your little tantrums don't change the fact that Lennox is a total idiot who got owned by Dawkins. The fact that the best you can do is complain about my swearing and make suggestions about my emotional maturity instead of actually debating me, shows that you have no valid answers, are stupid, and have nothing to say.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 I have a few questions for you. 1.what are you talking about? 2.I have never commented on this video, so are you responding to another comment of mine? 3.I havn't commented on these videos in a while, so did you scroll to find my comment?
rurouni152 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said "@JusBenLawyered your right to say that what they did wasn't in the name of Atheism, but they did do things in the name of what they called ''reason'' to abolish all religious beleifs that placed more faith in gods and deities than in the state."
Was responding.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
Absolute truth is God. That is all the theist can say. If scientists say this is a fact, only god will know if it is absolutely true or not. What use of a concept is that?? Useless. And the bible being the word of god would be an example of absolute truth. Where in the bible is there one example of absolute truth? No human could find one, or write one as absolute truth is a nonsense concept that is incompatible with the human existence.
benaberry 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keyguy13 I don't think this widely published, well-known intellectual Lennox lacks intellectual skills, is or reasoning in a circle, as you assert without a shred of evidence. I think you just like to root for Richard Dawkins, and somewhat childishly can't accept the idea that there could be real weaknesses in Dawkins' own position. There are weaknesses in both positions. No philosophical position is airtight - despite what so many YouTube "rooters" want to think.
mattcarolan 2 weeks ago
@mattcarolan I will admit my bias towards Dawkins. It doesn't change the fact that Lennox's conclusions are faulty and therefore his rationale is suspect. The man thinks Jesus rose from the dead. His thought processes are flawed.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mattcarolan 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mattcarolan 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 I love people like you. You come in all angry, full of hot air, determined to get your point across because only you could possibly be right. Perhaps you need to take a look from a neutral position like I have done. I'm not saying I agree with Lennox, but only a fool would claim Dawkins beat him in 'every conceivable way'. Dont disgrace yourself by coming on Youtube just for a rude argument, you pathetic little man.
ECHOxDINGO 2 weeks ago
@ECHOxDINGO LOL! And that's not what you're doing right now? I was responding to the same kind of self-righteousness that you're talking about. And no you didn't come from a neutral position. You came in with a bias just like all of us did. At least we're honest about it. Don't whine like a little bitch just because someone else has an opinion. And my opinion is that Dawkins beat him in every conceivable way. The fact that logic and reason back up my opinion is what frustrates you.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
You can just see dawkins literally grinding his teeth as he can't think of an answer to his opponent's intelligent points lol.
AcAwSk8Vids 2 weeks ago
@owensphil You do realize 'Lord of the flies' is fiction right? That it never happened? And that you're arguing your point using fiction?
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@Mirrodin82 Oh snappy comeback. Is your next one going to be about rubber and glue? Grow up, douchebag.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@Pendu068 What video did YOU watch? Cause it certainly wasn't this one. Dawkins owned Lennox. Plain and simple. The only embarrassment he felt was for how stupid Lennox's responses were.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@owensphil Actually, his comment made more sense than all of yours combined.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@Mirrodin82 Wow. Watching you two argue is like watching a couple of old people trying to bitch slap each other. Neither is equipped to do it and it's funny as hell
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@LEONJERSEY That's not nice...funny...but not nice :)
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@jesselee34 Yes because he wasn't searching for Dawkins/Lennox debate. He saw the title Dawkins pubicly (yes that's pubic not public) spanked again, and thought that he was going to see dawkins get spanked, a reasonable assumption. But instead we all get to see a poorly edited statement made out of context. So yeah, we ALL missed him getting spanked, because he never GOT spanked :) Watch the video and and see how someone truly gets owned. Dawkins delivers :)
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@MegaWarsaw OK so this is sort of true. many people are indoctrinated, and I agree with Dawkins that this is a bad idea. However, there are many of us who just grow up and stop believing the fairy tale. We use our brains, think and deduce that the delusion we've been fed is just stupid. Like when we figured out there wasn't a santa claus.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 I hate when people say they 'used their brain' and made an intelligent choice to no longer believe the 'fairy tale'. Thats asinine. You do not have the brain power to independently and definitvely conclude that Intelligent Design is impossible. What you have is the opinion of those smarter than you that you accept as fact and argue for (religious). Intelligent Design cannot be refuted, just as Evolutionary Theory cannot be verified empirically. Maybe you should ACTUALLY use your brain.
psford1 2 weeks ago
@psford1 No. believing in santa claus is asinine. And I do have the brain power to independently and definitively conclude that Intelligent design is impossible. That's why I am an atheist living an empowered life of personal responsibility and accountability, not one of superstition, nonsense and victim-hood. I'll fight and debate your god any day of the week. All you have to do is produce him/her/it.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 Dont bring 'my god' into this as I have not ever mentioned a belief in any entity to you. A belief in Santa Claus being asinine is relative. To a kid, it's not stupid. It brings them some degree of happiness - and furthermore it doesnt seriously impact their lives. Just like a belief in ID vs. ET. You can believe in ID and still believe in evolution, and go to school, and whatever else you want. ET & ID are completely relative. We should all be able to believe what we want.
psford1 2 weeks ago
@youtubian2500 No. I too found it funny that this moron can't spell 'publicly' and that the resultant phrase sounds more like he got dick slapped :) What's even funnier is that this video shows none of that :)
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@killerdec21 Yes
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 You meant Lennox
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@mcmanustony LOL! I have no idea what information theory is but I could deduce that this guy is a moron.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@psford1 That is ridiculous. Where do you get this crap? So you're saying that other species don't communicate with each other? Thereby relaying information? Practically EVERY species on the planet does this. You're retarded.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 Genius - communication is NOT the creation of information. So if I'm retarded what does that make you? The transfer of information is of no contest. It's the creation of a non-material item that is the concern. Do not enter this conversation if you have nothing useful to add (as it appears you dont).
psford1 2 weeks ago
@psford1 You're so fucking stupid you don't even know what information is. Communication is of course information. Are you really that stupid? If I speak and say "Psford1 is an utter moron", I have created information. It's non-material. It's redundant, yes, because everyone already knows it, but yes, it's information. Just like when my dog barks and scratches the door, he has relayed information to me that he created. You should get that lobotomy.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 ANIMALS do not create information, ever, except humans. I dont know how you confused this idea from my original post. Humans can create information - thats what I said. And apparently you agree with that. No other animals on this planet can create information. Relaying/passing information is not the same as creating it. These are very simple ideas, I dont see how you're not understanding that. With animals, they can only pass info that's already present ie.Your dog already had to pee.
psford1 2 weeks ago
@psford1 Look, for the last time: Evolution is fact. The fine points, that you didn't even read nor do you obviously understand, are arguable. It's called a theory to be scientifically correct. In reality, that's how life occurred here. Stop trying to disprove it just by saying you don't believe it. It happened. Get over it.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@GlorifiedTruth Yes. Charles manson wanted his followers to accept him or go to hell too...
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@malithe00 That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. The fact that you are a christian that actually believes this and stated it shows how "unethical" you are. You christians can do whatever the hell you want (and often do) and can go to confession and be "forgiven". You have "god" as an excuse and as a way to not be accountable for your actions. I'll take my atheism and the empowerment I get from being responsible for my own life over your pathetic subservience.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@toxin9 Dumbass. Atheists believe ALL religion breeds intolerance, ignorance and violence. Not just christians and muslims.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@kingpharaohtsar Ireland fought and killed itself over religion for years.
keyguy13 2 weeks ago
@keyguy13 if thats what u think uv failed to understand what we did to our people religion was a tool not a cause
kingpharaohtsar 2 weeks ago
John lennox won.
SudanCarib 2 weeks ago
The idea of god can truly be debated, but the christian god, the jewish god and the muslim god etc. have been debunked, they are primitive caveman-explanations for the world, and they are now obsolete..... Evolution explains how life evolved here on Earth, but still a mystery is the the creation of all matter, in the beginning of the universe (if there is one). Science says "we do not know yet", and religions arrogantly claim that a personified god did it... really, we do not know... yet.
aakkoin 2 weeks ago
LENNOX YOU LEGEND!!!!!, Tear Dawkins a new intellectual arse!.
85Aheadstix 3 weeks ago
As usual, a video from a theist that does not show a rebuttal. How can you claim a "spanking" when we don't see Hawkins. You present a false statement.
TheMte1000 3 weeks ago
@TheMte1000
> As usual, a video from a theist that does not show a rebuttal
Because as we all know anti theist never post one - sided videos
By the way, the link to the full debate is in the description box.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil First, it is not "anti" theist. It's just like when pro-choice is called pro-abortion. It is wrong. Second, the atheist debates that I watch show the theist side. In order to determine who won any debate, both sides must be shown. If you want to make a reasonable and rational claim, you should be showing what is being debated. I watched the entire debate and it was far from your choice of words.
TheMte1000 3 weeks ago
@TheMte1000 The problem is that we have these multiple sh*tty contradicting theories about everything but the truth is we dont ever see the 0's and 1's that the reality consist of. No matter how far we explain technical details how all works we have no frigging idea how this happened in the first place. If you have feeling you do know the answer, think again. We dont even know in physical terms what is movement. We just know how it works. Theres not a single theory wtf this all is.
StardustSpaceMonkey 2 weeks ago
@StardustSpaceMonkey So what you are saying is to hell with all of our scientific data and go with feelings? Instead of searching for scientific facts, we should just throw up our hands and say that a mystical person that noone has ever seen did it all. Now that's a good argument. Let's all turn off our brains because god will give us the answers. How long are we to wait? It's already been a few thousand years.
TheMte1000 2 weeks ago
@TheMte1000 No, Im not saying that. I think science is very much usefull to us. It answers greatly to "how things work" questions but if we think we can jump to conclusions by percieving how our universe works then its your choice but it doesn't explain sh*t about fundamental things. No I dont believe in bible or any theistic views. I'm just not stupid enough to think we have the answers. There can be and probably is some sh*t so far beoynd our monkey brains ability to comprehend.
StardustSpaceMonkey 2 weeks ago
@TheMte1000 His name is Dawkins.
JenningsMark 2 weeks ago
@JenningsMark I know. I mixed up my Dawkins with my Hawking.
TheMte1000 2 weeks ago
josh allem science of gods word
crazysillybaby1 3 weeks ago
This theist is ridiculous. Why does Dawkins expose himself to mindless fanatical psychopathic morons.
lifeschild1 3 weeks ago
@lifeschild1 hahaha, your a moron!, Lennox clearly destroys Dawkins on every level!, and hes only using rationality, and pure logic!, i think your beinga typical atheist and simply ignoring Dawkins awkward fumblings as his arguments are torn down.
85Aheadstix 3 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix Congratulate yourself with virtuous, virtual applause of dissemination. Your stupidity is quite apparent since your comment lacks meaning. Your futile attempt to try to integrate intellectual superiority together with comprehensive thought leaves you void of capacity and mental acuity. Lennox says nothing at all of contextual value when listened to intently. Dawkins is a biologist who can not expiate or dictate the necessary tone to quantify debate success.
lifeschild1 3 weeks ago
@lifeschild1 You are way to smart to be involved with these petty little videos! You have to dumb it down a bit or the theists heads will explode. You make my arguments sound pedestrian. I am envious. Good work.
TheMte1000 2 weeks ago
@TheMte1000 Thank you for your comment. I am very involved in the plight against polytheism and multicultural faiths. You should be as well. Theism, in any form, is the indelible mind altering wedge, which separates the mass populations of the world. Religion and its diversified cults of unalterable thinking, is the causation of most of the civil unrest in our world. Religions' pr