Any atheist who answers theist questions eventually gets tired of the same old (fallacious) arguments such as Pascal's Wager, and the veiled (or direct) "God-as-the-bogeyman" threats of damnation. "What if you're wrong?" Is both rolled into one. Since he's written books on this, she could have gotten the answer simply by reading The God Delusion (or any good book on Atheism). I'm sure Dawkins is tired of such questions and I don't fault him at all. She SHOULD question her own beliefs.
Dawkins comes off as prickly many times but that part of his "charm" But with a British accent he could rattle off total bile and it would still sound good. Hell he could read a shopping list and it would sound good.
Fucking Logic! grrrrrr.... ):-( <<<<that was my attempt at an angry emoticon!! =D
Also, just for you argumentative atheists out there that want a comment fight;
If there is no God (of any sort) how can you claim an objective moral high ground and classify things as wicked or evil? Surely if there is no God & morality is purely subjective (& relative) you have no authority to make such statements. COCK SUCKING ATHEISTS . poke, poke.. =)
@MrLittletomdj It's actually Christians who can't have an "objective moral high ground".We can demonstrate this using the Bible.God demands not to kill in the 10 commandments.Yet in chapters of the Bible he orders the slaughter of non believers etc..Why do you think that is?
@Stevoukos The statement wasn't a defence of the Bible. The point was that nobody can objectively claim to be more moral. It doesn't matter where your morality stems from. It's always subjective and relative unless there is some form of transcendent purpose to our existence.The Bible is self contradicting (especially when taken literally). But, an Atheist can't objectively say that Christians are immoral because the barometre has no objective grounding.
@Stevoukos Not exactly... We define what is right and wrong, so it's absolutely possible be moral without a "God" (this is the social contract). Imagine you are 1 of the last 2 people on earth though. How can you cast judgement on the other persons actions if you recognise that you set the rules of a social contract that the other person had never agreed to. Now imagine there's 3 people left on earth and the other 2 say that you're evil. Does majority rule make them right?
@MrLittletomdj Pt 1: Your questions deserve a slightly more detailed response, but I will try to answer them briefly: I don't know of anyone who says Morality=majority rule. That's not the social contract. The S.C. is a thought experiment based on the presumption of general rationality of its signatories, and the veil of ignorance. is it objective? I don't know what that word means outside of objects. Morality certainly can't be held or isolated, it's a system of behavior.
@MrLittletomdj pt 2: If your morality is based on the commandments or character of a preferred authority (god), it seems that that cannot be objective. It's easy to assign perfect morality to any preferred authority, and then claim that morality cannot be objectively grounded outside of that character. It does nothing to actually establish objectivity, since it is based on the whims of a person. The S.C. theory isn't perfect, but the D.C. theory isn't even close.
@Hektor88 1) Are you sure good moral values dont equate to majority rule.. Have you ever read/seen Lord of the Flies? Electing a prefered authority fugure & claiming he/it is the source of absolute morality is not my point, but for absolute morality to exist we must have an objective pupose & for us to have an objective purpose there must be some form of "God". It doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. It maybe that morality has evolved in a way that has been dictated by a higher power.
@MrLittletomdj pt 1) Well, if you need purpose for morality (not something i am sure i agree with), we all have purposes in our respective lives. It's a false dichotomy to say "We don't have universal purpose bestowed by a god, therefore we don't have ANY purpose." Individual lives have purpose, life itself does not (other than reproducing).
LOTF is an great novel, but I don't think it's an authority on anything. It's one persons perspective on the moral understanding of kids.
@Hektor88 2) I'm not making the claim that God exists & I'm not using to the Bible as a valid dictation of moral values. The religious tend to have a more polorized view of right and wrong, whereas athiests tend to view morality in higher definition. But Atheists live in a religious world & thier values stem from religious ideals (you're still playing by their rules). Unless we have a purpose right & wrong are just subjective ideas. It's too hard to get this into 500 letters or less... =/
@MrLittletomdj pt 2: You say "just subjective ideas." Yeah, in the same way that "gravity" is a subjective idea used to describe the behavior of matter under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean it's useless. an "Absolute" morality isn't something I think any of us want. I would rather have a thought out, reasoned morality that can function no matter its context, not an inflexible, dictatorial morality.
@Hektor88 I think we're misunderstanding one another here, simply because of the limitations of Youtube comments (500 characters). Gravity is not a subjective idea, it can be measured and predicted. What I said was not a false dichotomy as objective purpose & subjective purpose are two different things. The desire to reproduce is still subjective. I wasn't sugesting LOTF was an authority. I'll send you a message if you are interested. We're getting nowhere like this.
@ 01:09 You show a picture of Randolph-Macon College an unaffiliated school to the school at which Dawkins spoke at....which at the time was Randolph Macon Womens College, which is now Randolph College since going co-ed........Ranolph-Macon College is a college in Ashand Virginia.
It's important to know something about these different religions. First of all Hinduism is pantheistic and polytheistic. Jesus is had been incorporated as one of the many gods. Islam also used to be polytheistic before Muhammad.
To anyone who understands this, Veritas is correct. Stupidity is the cause for this confusion over the different world views.
@ProfMTH At about 8 min you refer to a statement by veritas saying he knows several people who are christians but are from other places. In a way this ALSO speaks to the point... they converted AFTER they moved here, was the implication I got. I don't know how he lists this as negative evidence when in fact it is positive evidence of the need of some people to conform to the "norm". Likely the norm where they came from was their previous religion.
I have a hypothesis on how to thin the ranks of the fanatically faithful,
During a child's formative years, education that focuses on critical thinking, connecting thoughts to testable evidence, recognizing poorly constructed arguments such as special pleading, strawmen, sample/confirmation bias, emotional arguments, build tolerance for diversity and the role of courage to speak unpopular viewpoints.
We can start with writing high interest children's stories. Beat em at their own game.
@Highlyretarded "how to thin the ranks of the fanatically faithful" ... "build tolerance for diversity and the role of courage to speak unpopular viewpoints"
Oh, there is no contradiction here at all... Consistency of thought must be one of your strong points.
I am proposing that children be taught to be intolerant of the intolerant, which includes the fanatics of any religion.
I am proposing that children should be tolerant of any that do not use intellectually dishonest arguing tactics and have universal values we can all live with, regardless of the religion or lack thereof, that promotes individual freedom and the common good. Like helping the poor get job training,
@knowwaie So by your logic, seeking the death penalty for a killer is hypocritical too, as one can not be for and against killing at the same time (YOU would dismiss context there too?). Are you a hypocrite on this issue?
Something tells me you are very much in favor of the death penalty...
If someone murders then that person should be put to death. You're probably opposed to that idea in your hypocrisy. Bizarre isn't it?
You really don't see the difference between these two things? First, we're not teaching children to kill murderers, the government does. Second, intolerance does not necessitate bodily harm. In that case the harm would be the crime. As it already is.
You're far too stupid for this. You're making too many mistakes to correct. Proceed in your psychosis.
@Highlyskeptical Look, you said we should be intolerant of intolerance. I pointed out to you that the idea doesn't make sense because it, itself, is intolerant and thus hypocritical.
You tried to compare it to the death penalty, but it's a false comparison because physical infringement on others rights are already stated laws. You're inventing a new law which would be best called "thought crime".
You don't believe in freedom of thought. You're a sick fuck, just like all liberals. Get lost.
Wow...you go into extreme detail explaining the blatantly obvious. The correct response would be, "Veritas, I like you...buddy...but you are being an intentionally obtuse prick."
Dawkings only mentions jews as when referring to the non-existent "judeo-Christian" civilization which is really the great European Roman Catholic civilization, with nothing jewish about it, unless you still believe the talmudist/zionists of today are descendants from the Hebrews. But I digress... They both seem to be very careful in avoiding bringing the crimes of modern Jewry to the attention of the public. Not really an atheist, is he?
@dashan091 Prof',dont like the truth when it is not compatible with your atheism? Richard Dawkins says the same thing about "design" which he cant explain so he resorts to "yeh, but who designed the designer?" Only he fails to see the logic of such an agrument ad absurdum.
A bad case of truth decay from Richard Dawkins google Melanie Phillips: the-truth-delusion-of-richard-dawkins This guy lives up to Darwins claim that semi-literate apes are quite incapable of knowing what telling the truth means “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
What do u hope to prove by this video? Is it an attempt to get at the truth? To prove DOCTOR Dawkins as a philosopher of some renown? Or just an exercise in self -gratification? If atheism asserts the meaningless of life, isnt it just meaningless to affirm that everything is ultimately meaninglessness for tomorrow we die? Isnt death for the atheist as much a confirmation that it's like we never existed?
@ProfMTH why ridicule Christians who seek to live by Gospel values like non-violence, love of neighbor, forgiveness, humility, compassion for the hungry, the poor & marginalized but then u remain deftly silent about a morally bankrupt world brimming with racism, dishonesty & hatred, dodgy bankers, drug pushers, pedophile networks, porn addicts, power crazed despots, where greed & corruption are endemic?
@dashan091 "porn addicts, power crazed despots, where greed & corruption,," don't forget those dirty fags that god sends to hell just for being who they are. oh and the muslims, and the buddhists, and the atheists and the pantheists, and the tribal people who never heard the gospell, and the mormons and the countless hordes god doesn't want around him....besides christians. spare us man, really, spare us your sanctimoniousness, christianity is hate in loving drag.
@BillKiernan What a sad pathetic life if that's all u think religion has 2 offer! I dont pretend to know how much truth other monotheistic faith possess or how theyll stand before God. I do know that He is wise and compassionate enough to deal with our often failed struggle.
"God's thoughts are as high above our thoughts as the heavens are above earth."
I have identified God with the love that enhances life in the call to love our neighbor. It is to act toward them in such a way as to enhance their humanity. Once we break this language barrier and begin to think through the dimensions of speaking not about God, but about our experience of God, then I believe we could reconstruct the Jesus story on this basis and be within the context of Jesus' purpose as St. John defines it, "That we may have life and have it abundantly."
So why do atheists waste, sorry spend so much of their miniscule life criticising religion or belief in God? Arent you threatened by a world on the break of financial collapse from dodgy Wall Street bankers, endemic corruption, tax evasion, & governments simply living beyond their means? Why not attack belief in aliens, astrology, fairies? Is it because no one is listening or does it give small meanings to an otherwise meaningless life?
@dashan091 "So why do atheists waste, sorry spend so much of their miniscule life criticising religion or belief in God?"
Among other reasons, to help unwitting theists to realize they're wasting their time following and defending an incoherent concept that exists only in their minds.
You pick up a newspaper &there are pages about it, people cant stop debating it at your work, u turn on the TV & there u have ads for upcoming events, as well as 10 mins of the nightly news, Weekend TV has endless rituals & replays &what about those Sunday traffic jams & full car parks. Now is this true or am I talking about a religion called football, that many live for, & others love to hate?
In my answer to your question, where did I say anything about hate? It seems you have more than a bit of trouble following what I've actually said in response to your previous question. Please don't waste my time or yours until you remedy that. Thanks.
@ProfMTH "Among other reasons, to help unwitting theists to realize they're wasting their time"
But why, why not astrologists, sci-fi clubs, fairies? Since life is ultimately meaningless for the atheist, all u seem to be about is trying immortalise your microcosmic existence in cyberspace, giving your futile life tiny little meanings within a meaningless worldview.
I should add that a friend of mine whose life is dominated by horoscopes is totally frustrated by my refusal to debate her star gazing theories. I am completely happy to remain totally indifferent even ignorant of her claims. Why? Because my worldview is totally justified by my Christian faith. Does your worldview give u meaning purpose & destiny? Whatabout fulfilment & hope?
@dashan091 "Does your worldview give u meaning purpose & destiny? Whatabout fulfilment & hope?" it sure does. especially since i know i can't just ride it out because everything will be awesome in heaven when i die, i know i have to makes things count while i'm still breathing. do you have friends/family who are not saved? they'll be in hell while you're in heaven. And you think you'll be enjoying yourself there while these people fry. If that gives your live "meaning", well, you're sick.
@BillKiernan U seem to invent scripture to serve your own ends. Can u think of anything Jesus has said to imply that friends and family are condemned? Can I suggest that the underlying tones of his mission is to preach God's love and forgiveness. Where are his words of eternal damnation? "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (it's a hard call sometimes)
@dashan091 "U seem to invent scripture to serve your own ends. Can u think of anything Jesus has said to imply that friends and family are condemned?" sure, any verse where he states that those who don't go through him don't get to the father. or are you going to tell me friends and family get to piggyback into heaven if you're saved? so the question remains, how is heaven heavenly if some of whom you live are being simultaneously tortured?
@dashan091 "But why, why not astrologists, sci-fi clubs, fairies?" because again, none of those groups use slimey, underhanded, deceitful tactics to push their bullshit into science classes, to legislate their bigotry and superstition into civil law, and they generally don't show up at your door to annoy the shit out of you with their warnings about hell. "Since life is ultimately meaningless for an atheist" we create our own meaning, just like you do. We just understand that we create it.
"If atheism asserts the meaningless of life, isnt it just meaningless to affirm that everything is ultimately meaninglessness for tomorrow we die? Isnt death for the atheist as much a confirmation that it's like we never existed?"
A car will one day become useless, "meaningless" as it rusts and becomes one with the earth again. During the car's useful life - was it still meaningless/useless? Why do you still use a car if ultimately it will no longer exist?
@TurboDally So ur life has about as much meaning as a car, possibly even less so? Maybe u can live on in the bowel of others as an organ donor, have u signed up yet?
"ur life has about as much meaning as a car, possibly even less so"
You missed the point entirely. The car can transport things and people, since the car will at some point breakdown and decay - does that make the car meaningless? I'm sorry that you can't concieve of a meaningful life without your mandmade construct god.
Why bother with the everday hassle of life, your only concern should be heaven. Don't bother with ultimately meaningless computers, cars, friends etc.
Sam Harris"We have to be honest, unremittingly honest. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. but our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. We can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able. If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about AN HOUR. What then, turbo?
Oh wow those quotes are soooo powerful! What have I been doing all my life???? My life is meaningless without god! You've shown me that Christianity is the only way and that the god is the Christian god!!! Oh no why am I engaging in fruitless friendship that only give me satisfaction for AN HOUR???!!! lol.
"I think u (REALLY) need to read what Sam Harris, Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins say about the meaningless of life in the Atheist's worldview."
Do the words "rest in peace" have any significance for you?
We can answer the critic, but only God can open the heart. It is not in our ability, and not our responsibility, to regenerate the dead heart and give sight to the blind eyes of unbelievers. That is God's gracious work.
So other than a few fleeting "vivid and intoxicating moments" what purpose do u exist other than as a pitiless slave to your DNA (Dawkins). Anyone who cares to take the atheist's worldview to its logical absurdity would see that a car has more purpose than a bunch of dust-bound DNA. Some might even say a car can be recycled, and even be a post-apocolyptic witness to man's failed intellect.
"answer the fool in his folly lest he seem wise in his own conceit" (Psalms)
@dashan091 "Anyone who cares to take the atheist's worldview to its logical absurdity..' that's why it's so much better to live in a fantasy world with magical beings that bring you to an eternal happy place as long as you do the right things right? things like evolution rather than creation may be reality, but it's uncomfortable, so it's better to play the equivalent of 24 hour dungeons and dragons in your mind and live in fantasy land, because reality is scary, right?
@dashan091 "So ur life has about as much meaning as a car, possibly even less so?" I've seen the light, I should kiss an angry god's ass and believe an unbelievable story so he allows me, a lowly disgusting sinner, to hang out with him and all the other sycophants eternally. Man this feels good, my life has meaning now! I can see why you're into it!
@BillKiernan Tell me Bill many well known atheist have had a very estranged paternal relationship and see any attempt to personify/relate God to a loving father figure as repugnant. Is this why u show so much much bitterness to such a concept? I suggest u google 'Psychology of Atheism" to explain the resentment of those who have come from loving family backgrounds.
@dashan091 "Is this why u show so much much bitterness to such a concept?" i have a great relationship with my dad and always has. i find the idea of god as a "loving father" repugnant, because of the way the character named god acts in the bible. shall we delve into the psychology of born-again christians? a large portion of the ranks of which are made up of people who completely screwed up their lives, and then latch on to a teaching that says they can forget all that and are forgiven?
there's a reason why we (atheists) get testy when that "what if you're wrong" question is raised, because it's a last-ditch effort by theists to scare us.
@BillKiernan Fear is the greatest motivator especially when the stakes are so high. As Pascal said, "the believer cannot be a loser by default but woe to the skeptic who should (cynically) claim God to be a delusion". Why does God's existence taunt u so? I have a friend whose life is consumed by astrology & gets frustrated by my total 'lack of interest" to debate the merits of horoscopes etc.
Why? Because my Christian worldview gives meaning, purpose & destiny unlike atheism which must face the absurdity of life without God. Science has buried God is the atheists claim. But deep down they know that a purposeless unguided universe is inconsistent with universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. The only thing incomprehensible about the universe is that its comprehensible (A. Einstein). A rationally intelligible universe cries out for Creator.
@dashan091 "...my Christian worldview gives meaning, purpose & destiny...."
Actually, you only *believe* it does that. Since it has no basis in reality, it's doesn't truly give you anything. It's the functional equivalent of a placebo. And, hey, if that works for you, feel free to cling to it. However, my experience indicates that most people are ultimately interested in reality as opposed to delusion, no matter how comforting it may seem.
@dashan091 Deep down you know that the world was created by Ea Iluvatar from the flame imperishable. It is merely your lust for the power of the discord of Melkor that makes you follow this "Christ". You know that your god is a jealous god because he is Melkor. You know that death is the gift to man. You secretly know all this, but you deny it anyway, for such confusion is the way of Melkor.
@Riff625 God by definition is the ultimate source of all truth, the eternal creator of all that exists. Man’s long history to uncover that reality & truth has undergone a spiritual evolution. That some attempts to define God have come & gone, is inevitable given man’s finite intellect. Just as more data has improved science’s understanding of atomic orbital theory, astrophysics is also showing us the God of the Bible is the best explanation of an exquisitely designed universe.
Most religions emphasis that the search for truth &goodness is a continual and often failed struggle. As messages get refined &reinterpreted over centuries by different communities, religion has gone thru and is still in the process of a spiritual evolution. My role as an informed Christian is to argue its excellence not its claim to absolute truth. Religion is not just a matter of propositions, it’s a lived life in the consciousness and presence of God we don’t fully understand.
@dashan091 If god is the source of truth, why don't we know everything? Why couldn't it even tell us where the sun goes at night? How did it create everything, given the law of conservation? A creator is inconsistent with that law. How can god be the best explanation if you have to assume he exists? God isn't an explanation at all. You can't show me what god is made of nor describe the processes which it utilizes to do impossible things.
@dashan091 gods existence doesn't taunt me in any way. the existence of so may people in the 21st century who believe insane things such as the creator of the universe's best plan for mankinds salvation is a sacrifice in the desert one time in history, and then having humans travel around to convince people that it's a true story, and if people accept the story they are rewarded, if not, they're punished. that's what fascinates me, no taunting involved.
You pick up a newspaper &there are pages about it, people cant stop debating it at your work, u turn on the TV & there u have ads for upcoming events, as well as 10 mins of the nightly news, Weekend TV has endless rituals & replays &what about those Sunday traffic jams & full car parks. Now is this true or am I talking about a religion called football, that many live for, & others love to hate?
@dashan091 i turn on me TV and i see another trial where someone is fighting to have prayer in public school, to have the 10 commandments in the public square, to have ID a/k/a creationism in drag snuck into another school district, where politicians call my secular democracy a "christian nation" and have wet dreams about it being a theocracy, fighting abortion rights on religious grounds, bothering me in a park by yelling about hell (cont.)
@BillKiernan Wow someone wanting to teach the 10commandants upsets you so?? No doubt Gospel values like non-violence, love of neighbor, forgiveness, humility, compassion for the hungry, the poor & marginalized also irks you? So u happy to remain deftly silent about a morally bankrupt world brimming with racism, dishonesty & hatred, dodgy bankers, drug pushers, pedophile networks, porn addicts, power crazed despots, where greed & corruption are endemic?
@dashan091 yes, someone wanting to teach the 10 commandments upsets me, because besides the first 3, which are nothing more than the chest-pounding of a mythical desert war god, demanding obedience and strict adherence to one religion OR ELSE. As for the rest of your non-sequitor, none of the values you list are the property of "the gospell" they have existed in many cultures throughout human history and don't necessitate belief in fairy tales to act on.
@dashan091 (cont.) or someone is on the news "offended" by this or that criticism of their precious beliefs, or politicians who believe we're in "end times" anyway so preserving the enviornment is no big deal, or i see people like my mother, who was in a bad time in her life, and gets sucked into born again christian cults where they are indoctrinated into a rigid belief system that alienates them even from their own families. this is what i deal with every day, and more.
@BillKiernan "gods existence doesn't taunt me in any way." I dont waste endless hours on astrology websites or debating alien abduction. I havent lost a minutes sleep ever thinking other worldviews are superior because my Christian faith is supported by experience, reason, logic , science & not least of all Revelation. What would God's existence do to your worldview/lifestyle should u be wrong?
@dashan091 "What would God's existence do to your worldview/lifestyle should u be wrong?" this is like asking me "what would you do if you're wrong about godzilla existing? you live near a shore after all.." Until god decides to reveal himself in a direct way, not through an outdated book full of obvious falsehoods, or through ridiculous flawed human beings, i really have no reason to believe "he" exists. he wants a relationship, he can contact me. ok?
@dashan091 and please don't tell me "he'll contact you if you believe in him." If you can't see through the psychological trick pulled there by all religions "you have to buy it first, then you'll know it's true" i really don't know what to tell you. You mean if I assume something is true and psyche myself up really hard about it, I'll feel the "presence" of something in my life? Go figure...ask anyone, from ANY religion, and they'll tell you all about their "experiences" that "verify" the truth
@BillKiernan If I, as a theist am wrong, no harm done, I have lived a very fulfilling & happy life in the fellowship of likeminded people. In fact I think in some small way I have lived Gospel values & have even made this world a better place. Again, what do u say about a world in which dishonesty, racism, greed, intolerance & hatred is on the rise? "Love one another, as I have loved you."
@dashan091 if you as a theist are wrong, you lived your life with your head in the clouds, dreaming about a reality that doesn't exist instead of facing this one. the world was just as fucked up when christianity was strong as it is now. theocracies and mass religiousity were not the "good old days." I'm not afraid of being wrong at all. a being that is capable of creating a universe sure as hell isn't the god that's in your bible, of that i rest assured.
There is an interesting quote that I'll use to answer this:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."- Marcus Aurelius
@BillKiernan It seems like the ‘intellectually bright’ atheist has "nothing to prove" so he doesnt have to justify there is no God. How is that logical? I lack belief in aliens but I have no desire to waste endless hours on such websites justifying, challenging or ridiculing those who do. The fact is your futile worldview is totally threatened by a God who haunts your every waking moment. Since we both cant be right u cant claim the genetic fallacy like Dawkins.
I concur. I really don't see what Veritas' problem was with the answer. The point was that the girl's question arbitrarily presumes Christianity as the most likely antithesis to atheism. It's a false dichotomy, and I thought he handled it rather well.
The point is, yes, Dawkins could be wrong, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that reality defaults to Christianity.
Besides which, I can't believe Veritas actually believes that's a heavy question. He's such a joke.
@STFUNOWlol As we dont know everything nor can we disprove God's existence, everyone must admit to doubts. It is the arrogance and ignorance of scientists pretending to be philosophers who assume they are beyond reproach that is laughable. Any high school student of logic can tear Dawkins' main theme of God Delusion to threads. So STFUN what if you're wrong?
@dashan091 Assume that they are beyond reproach? Science thrives on criticism and skepticism. Religion is the one that squelches free thought and different ways of thinking.
Once again, we see how skewed religious thinking is.
@STFUNOWlol So STFUN what if you're wrong? Still cant answer or wont answer? Maybe u should read Pascal's wager one more time. Of course if youre right we theists still win-happy healthy lives etc. Since God's existence is a plausible worldview the atheist is in a dilemma, however. BTW as a senior scientist, my worldview is in perfect harmony with modern science. Please read PCW Davies, Ken Miller Francis Collins and many so likeminded theists.
@dashan091 - Wow. A lot to say to that. First of all, you CANNOT be a good scientist and a religious person. I can always, ALWAYS tell when a scientist is religious, just talking to them for a little bit. When you're religious, you just think different.
What if I'm wrong? Oh well. I was tricked, as far as I'm concerned. I see the possibility of a god being real being about the same as the Matrix being real. I am an educated individual, and I can't believe in something that looks obviously fake
What if following Islam is the true religion and it turns out you were wrong?
What if SCIENTOLOGY is right?
I prefer to believe out of honesty not fear. I won't believe in god "just incase" as I would have to subscribe to so many religions. If your god does not value honesty, then I don't even want to know him.
"BTW as a senior scientist, my worldview is in perfect harmony with modern science."
You'll find the same said by atheistic scientists.
@TurboDally I think u need to revisit the Gospels-e.g. the greatest commandment, the Sermon on the Mount, the call to nonviolence, compassion and HUMILITY. Maybe u prefer a morally bankrupt world where dishonesty, violence, greed and corruption are endemic, where your savings are systematically plundered by by ruthless traders and loan sharks, where gov's & individual live beyod their means.
"You'll find the same said by atheistic scientists." Oh yeh? Can u name any scientist or evidence that has given rise to a conclusion "therefore God almost certainly doesnt exist" Dawkins says"greatest challenge facing science is to explain design in the universe". He's right about that one. Invoking a 'science of the gaps' he says physics may one day have its Darwin.
The irony of such a view is that even if we could physically explain the huge number of exquisitely designed life-permitting parameters that make life possible there is still a catagory mistake. Mechanism and agency are two different realities. Gravity explains planetary motion but not its essence or origin or why there should be such elegant maths underpinning it. Then of course there are the chemical processes in the brain that marvel at it.
I don't rely on the gospels for anything - they are not the origins of morality. Things like "don't kill, steal" etc predate the commandments in cultures that did not even follow the Abrahamic religions.
"Maybe u prefer a morally bankrupt world"
If this is the impression you get from me despite the quote I have mentioned - then it is YOU who are morally bankrupt.
you're so funny prof, you're about as evasive as they get. On one hand you self promote your insights to theology as a scholar of sorts, but you're not really a scholar of religion at all. And ultimately you think your snarky wit offers some rebuttal, when it doesn't. I too could repost all your remarks if need be, but then you would simply reply not to watch your videos. Why then make videos to engage the community only to mock rebuttal. What kind of debate do they teach at that school anyway?
@ProfMTH I think Athiests need to be more patient when explaining things to thiests.Remember there are years of programming going on in there plus when something held most dear is being torn apart there will always be a defense mechanism, like denial.Also spirituality(superstion) must be part of our evolution, just as Logical thinking is part of others.Just like a genius may have trouble intigrating in society, the creationist may have trouble grasping the concept of logic and reasoning
@ProfMTH I know, but but sometimes people are driven away form learning if they are belittled or insulted. I know some one like Thunderfoot tries to be respectful, but even his titles of his videos can be agitating to a creationist. Aronra is actually one of the best to learn from. He hits you with facts, and he does so in a non agressive way. He just hits you hard and fast with facts and with humor. I feel like I was in Unversity for 2 months after five minutes of his vids lol
Hylo, perhaps I'm missing your intended point here. Are you suggesting that I fail to be sufficiently patient with believers or are do you feel that I too strongly sided with Richard Dawkins in the video or is it something else? Thanks.
By the way, I'm a big fan of both people you mentioned.
Why is it ok for my family to ridicule me and tell me that I am going to be tortured for eternity because I don't believe in their invisible friend? Yet at the same time it is intolerable and insulting that I suggest your "imaginary friend" is merely a delusion?
@hylo1111 I'm patient: explain if logical absolutes exist or what your ultimate source of truth is. Is your mind just chemical reactions &electrical impulses? How do u account for design & Big Bang model (Penrose/Hawkingss Singularity theorem)? Is everything just matter &energy or are there abstract realities? Can u account for the universal realization that nearly all human beings throughout history have postulated a realm beyond and greater than the physical?
@dashan091 So if you take a Jehova Witness, a Southern Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Budist, a gnostic, a Diest, and a North American First nation, who has the Ultimate truth? And yes your mind is just chemical and electrical impulses. Otherwise we would not need to seperate the brain in severe epilepsy, or use an electrode in the brain to slow down and stop severe tremors.
If he had the mind and the ability to choose something else other than Christianity, why not respect other's choice of others who choose Christianity as well.
Dr.Dawkins is not the first one but has there were many preceding to him subscribing to a false idea that majority is the rule of the day. Majority people believed that Earth was flat some point in time. Majority people believed that Human beings came from monkeys sometime.
Also going by his logic, may I present another data that he was influenced by Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton as he claims, therefore he is biased with majority of his influencers being atheists what else can he speak.
It is nice to hear Dr.Dawkins comments on if you are raised in a country with majority Christian influence you would be a Christian, but he is self contradicting as he is not Christian though he is in Oxford - England where 71.6% of English people identify as Christians.
"It is nice to hear Dr. Dawkins comments on if you are raised in a country with majority Christian influence you would be Christian, but he is self contradicting as he is not Christian though he is in Oxford - England where 71.6% of English people identify as Christians."
Paulanbu, where did Dr. Dawkins say that one *must* be a Christian if one is from a country that is majority Christian?
@ProfMTH Come on, Proffy, why does the truth sit lossely with the atheist? Dawkins invokes the genetic fallacy in most of his debates. He arrogantly resorts to it when he's challenged to answer the audience question "what if youre wrong?" But why should truth matter when a semi-literate apes brain is designed for survival & not to ask 'why' questions about meaning, purpose & destiny?
At around 10:15 or so, you state that Jewish and Muslim theology and apologetics are at least as well developed and refined as Christian theology and apologetics.
While this may be true for Jewish thought, Muslim religious scholars have yet to publish a fully developed systematic theology. Additionally, all of the evidence available indicates that the Quran and Sunnah evolved over a period of centuries.
Just pointing out a possible error of category, here...
My opinion doesn't change the fact that there is no published systematic theology of Islam of which I'm aware, in any language.
The Bible is a collection of 66 texts, written over a 1500 year period. We have evidence that the content of significant portions of the OT remained largely unchanged over thousands of years. I wouldn't categorize this as "evolution."
We have no similar evidence for the Quran and Sunnah...reference the work of Gerd-R. Puin for more information.
Please. The process of developing the Jewish canon took place over approximately four centuries. One cannot even speak of one Christian canon since to this day Christians don't agree about what texts are and are not canonical. In many branches of Christianity, formal determinations of the canon weren't published until the 16th or 17th century. You happen to belong to a wing of Christianity that holds to the 66-book canon. Millions of Christians believe the canon to be larger than that.
That opinion is somewhat uninformed. Writings were acknowledged as inspired as early as the 1st Century AD, within the book of Acts in the NT. Historians use this book as an authoritative text, so I don't think that this is circular.
The first canon was the Muratorian canon (ca. 170AD), which is comprehensive with the exception of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The 66 book canon is not some late, controversial development. And Islam still has no systematic theology.
The 66 books of the Bible were named and codified as early as the Council of Hippo, in 393AD. We have much manuscript evidence from prior to that, as well, so that we can make informed inferences as to the accuracy of these documents.
Though Roman Catholicism does include the Apocrypha in their canon, they also include the same 66 books.
"The first canon was the Muratorian canon (ca. 170 AD), which is comprehensive with the exception of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John."
First, it's quite funny that you would call "comprehensive" a list that leaves out nearly 20% of the NT texts you believe to be canonical. Second, the text of the Muratorian fragment is believed to have been written anywhere between the late 2d century and the 4th century. Third, it is at best odd that you're presenting what you and most...
...most (if not all) other Christians would regard as incomplete NT canon in support of your claim that there was no "evolution" of the Bible. To the extent that the Muratorian listing demonstrates anything, it is precisely the opposite of your claim. So you're making my point for me here.
"The 66 book canon is not some late, controversial development."
Take that up with, e.g., Catholic and the various Orthodox Christians, whose canons include more books.
"The 66 books of the Bible were named and codified as early as the Council of Hippo, in 393AD."
The Council of Hippo promulgated a 72-book canon, Stronzo. I suspect you know that and tried to slip something past me hoping I didn't know about this. Spare me any apologetic shell games. I have no patience for them. Thanks.
Please source your argument about the Council of Hippo. Additionally, check the writings of Origen, ca 280AD. Your original assertion was that Christians continue to fight over the canon...we don't, in spite of your attempt to rewrite history.
"Your original assertion was that Christians continue to fight over the canon...."
Actually, what I said was that Christians continue to DISAGREE about the canon. You don't agree that the biblical canon contains 72 books, do you, Stronzo?
"Please source your argument for the Council of Hippo."
Among many sources, "The Canon Debate" edited by Lee McDonald and James Sanders.
Can you be a bit more specific? I have that book, and I'd like a citation, since you are unaware of Islamic scholarship that would provide warrant to your claim that Islamic theology and apologetic is equivalent to that of Judaism and Christianity...
I think it's funny that you've made a whole load of assertions without any basis, but you're hokking me to provide citations for everything. In any case, for a primary source I refer you to Canon 36 of the Council of Hippo, which says, in pertinent part, "The canonical books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the books of Kings, the two books of [Chronicles], Job, the Psalms of David...
...the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (minor) prophets, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." As for "The Canon Debate", there are a number of spots to which I can refer you, but I'll stick with just one for now. Have a look at Daniel Harrington's essay "The Old Testament in the Early Church and Today", which says, in pertinent part, "The Council of Hippo has Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees."
Naw...just got tired of the bad argumentation. I quoted the Council of Hippo, but I could have easily quoted the Council of Carthage, or the lists of Clement, or Polycarp or Irenaeus...but your use of tu quoque avoided the original point...
There remains no published systematic theology for Islam, in any language. Additionally, Muslims simply re-use the same refuted apologetic originally used by other heretics...error of category, if I've ever seen one.
Well, don't be too hard on yourself. You were factually incorrect. Happens to everyone.
"I quoted the Council of Hippo...."
No, you didn't. You merely made an assertion about it, one that was incorrect. *I* quoted the Council, specifically, Canon 36, as well as a scholarly article, both of which showed that the Council embraced more than the 66-book Bible Protestants embrace. You were wrong, but it seems you're struggling against that.
"I could have easily quoted the Council of Carthage...."
And how would that have helped you here? It also included the books of Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and so on.
"the lists of Clement"
And how would that have helped you here?
"Polycarp or Irenaeus"
Same question. By the way, you should probably be careful with Irenaeus since in "Against Heresies" he claims he had it on apostolic authority that Jesus was executed at or about the age of 50.
You may have misunderstood why I quoted these councils, in your efforts to redirect the argument. Your assertion of an evolving canon and your categorization of that as my central point is proof that you are just trying to intellectually bully me, instead of confronting your error...
I'll state my point again, in a vain attempt to keep you on topic...Islam has neither a developed, published systematic theology, nor does it have an original apologetic. If you believe so, you are mistaken.
If, as it seems, you equate my pointing out facts in contrast to and correction of your erroneous claims about the canon as intellectual bullying, then you're correct. You've made bogus claims about the canon and, it seems, cannot bring yourself to deal with that. I suspect you tend to count on people not knowing the facts when you start blathering about this or that council. Well, I do know what I'm talking about. Get used to it or move on.
I only said that Islam has no systematic theology and apologetic, and you ad-hom me because I ask you to source your assertion at about 10:00 of your video, that equates Islam with Christianity and Judaism in their theology and apologetic...why?
In equating Islam, a faith with no tradition of scholarship, with Christianity and Judaism, faiths that founded Harvard and Princeton and Yale and...well, you understand my wanting to call you on this error.
I do take up that point with my Catholic friends...they feel the way that I do, that the Christian canon was codified in the 4th century...your allegation that Christians argue about the canon is gone, sir.
As far as your categorization of the canon as some point of contention among biblical Christians, you make a mountain out of a molehill, and your error of category remains...
Islam has no systematic theology. Your attempts to distract are much like my Muslim friends...ineffectual.
"...comprehensive considering this document came out in 170AD...."
Again, you must know that it's dated between 170 CE and the fourth century CE. So, again, please. And, again, your claim that it was "comprehensive" for its time simply makes *my* point about the "evolution" of the Bible.
"...no priest whom I know would dispute any of the 66 books upon which we agree."
But again you also know -- or should know -- that your Protestant canon is shorter than the canons embraced by...
...Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Again, don't waste my time with apologetic shell games. Last warning.
"Oh, and you forgot about the fact that Islam has no systematic theology...."
No, I didn't. I dealt with it in my very first reponse to you. It's your opinion. You're entitled to it. Based on your comments, it's clear you haven't mastered the facts about your own holy book all that well. If I were you, I'd address that deficiency before I went off talking about other religions.
"Muslim religious scholars have yet to publish a fully developed systematic theology."
You'd obviously rather dicker with "tu quoque" argumentation than confront your error, the one about the lack of a developed Islamic theology and apologetic.
Quick reminder...you are the one who stated that Islam has a developed theology and apologetic, not me. That is your opinion, and I simply pointed that out.
Wow, a "source" infinite regress. Stronzo, are you sure your real question isn't on the origin of the universe? If the apologetics of Islam are not as well founded as those of Judaism, it seems irrelevant to me. The fact that there are 1,600,000,000 Muslims would tend to indicate that they've found their own way of indoctrinating their children. I think you've lost touch with the context of ProfMTH's original statement.
No, my real question was the error of category committed by ProfMTH in stating in his video that Islamic theology and apologetic is as well developed as that of Judaism and Christianity. He is incorrect in this assertion, and he was throwing red herrings out left and right to distract from his error.
I didn't bring up the origin of the universe...that is off topic.
There are other reasons for the number of Muslims in the world...you're off topic again.
Alt. translation: ProfMTH's bias against Christianity and unwillingness to admit fault.
When you opine about Islam out of willful ignorance, and present yourself as educated, you show your true colors. I pointed out an error of category, and you overreacted and became evasive.
I said nothing about the Canon, you did. I tried to point out a flaw in your reasoning, and you self-sourced.
I hope my kids don't attend your institution...you have my prayers.
"ProfMTH's bias against Christianity and unwillingness to admit fault."
That's hilarious coming from you, a Christian, who made false and easily disproven claims about the Christian canon and then, when proven wrong, petulantly stomped off without admitting your errors.
"I said nothing about the Canon...."
I repost your quotations if your recollection needs refreshing.
"I hope my kids don't attend your institution...."
If they're like you, it's unlikely they could get admitted.
Huh, I would have thought Jewish apologetics would have been more well developed considering it has been around longer than Christianity.
Jonstern1983 5 months ago
@Jonstern1983 The thing is, Jews don't really need apologetics the same way or to the same extent that Christians do because we don't proselytize.
Kailoa36 5 months ago
Any atheist who answers theist questions eventually gets tired of the same old (fallacious) arguments such as Pascal's Wager, and the veiled (or direct) "God-as-the-bogeyman" threats of damnation. "What if you're wrong?" Is both rolled into one. Since he's written books on this, she could have gotten the answer simply by reading The God Delusion (or any good book on Atheism). I'm sure Dawkins is tired of such questions and I don't fault him at all. She SHOULD question her own beliefs.
PlasteredDragon 6 months ago
Dawkins comes off as prickly many times but that part of his "charm" But with a British accent he could rattle off total bile and it would still sound good. Hell he could read a shopping list and it would sound good.
finderfinder100 6 months ago
Fucking Logic! grrrrrr.... ):-( <<<<that was my attempt at an angry emoticon!! =D
Also, just for you argumentative atheists out there that want a comment fight;
If there is no God (of any sort) how can you claim an objective moral high ground and classify things as wicked or evil? Surely if there is no God & morality is purely subjective (& relative) you have no authority to make such statements. COCK SUCKING ATHEISTS . poke, poke.. =)
MrLittletomdj 7 months ago
@MrLittletomdj It's actually Christians who can't have an "objective moral high ground".We can demonstrate this using the Bible.God demands not to kill in the 10 commandments.Yet in chapters of the Bible he orders the slaughter of non believers etc..Why do you think that is?
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos The statement wasn't a defence of the Bible. The point was that nobody can objectively claim to be more moral. It doesn't matter where your morality stems from. It's always subjective and relative unless there is some form of transcendent purpose to our existence.The Bible is self contradicting (especially when taken literally). But, an Atheist can't objectively say that Christians are immoral because the barometre has no objective grounding.
MrLittletomdj 7 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Oh so you basically implying that being moral is only possible if a God exists?(not necessarily that God being Yahweh though)
Stevoukos 7 months ago
@Stevoukos Not exactly... We define what is right and wrong, so it's absolutely possible be moral without a "God" (this is the social contract). Imagine you are 1 of the last 2 people on earth though. How can you cast judgement on the other persons actions if you recognise that you set the rules of a social contract that the other person had never agreed to. Now imagine there's 3 people left on earth and the other 2 say that you're evil. Does majority rule make them right?
MrLittletomdj 7 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Pt 1: Your questions deserve a slightly more detailed response, but I will try to answer them briefly: I don't know of anyone who says Morality=majority rule. That's not the social contract. The S.C. is a thought experiment based on the presumption of general rationality of its signatories, and the veil of ignorance. is it objective? I don't know what that word means outside of objects. Morality certainly can't be held or isolated, it's a system of behavior.
Hektor88 6 months ago
@MrLittletomdj pt 2: If your morality is based on the commandments or character of a preferred authority (god), it seems that that cannot be objective. It's easy to assign perfect morality to any preferred authority, and then claim that morality cannot be objectively grounded outside of that character. It does nothing to actually establish objectivity, since it is based on the whims of a person. The S.C. theory isn't perfect, but the D.C. theory isn't even close.
Hektor88 6 months ago
@Hektor88 1) Are you sure good moral values dont equate to majority rule.. Have you ever read/seen Lord of the Flies? Electing a prefered authority fugure & claiming he/it is the source of absolute morality is not my point, but for absolute morality to exist we must have an objective pupose & for us to have an objective purpose there must be some form of "God". It doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. It maybe that morality has evolved in a way that has been dictated by a higher power.
MrLittletomdj 6 months ago
@MrLittletomdj pt 1) Well, if you need purpose for morality (not something i am sure i agree with), we all have purposes in our respective lives. It's a false dichotomy to say "We don't have universal purpose bestowed by a god, therefore we don't have ANY purpose." Individual lives have purpose, life itself does not (other than reproducing).
LOTF is an great novel, but I don't think it's an authority on anything. It's one persons perspective on the moral understanding of kids.
Hektor88 6 months ago
@Hektor88 2) I'm not making the claim that God exists & I'm not using to the Bible as a valid dictation of moral values. The religious tend to have a more polorized view of right and wrong, whereas athiests tend to view morality in higher definition. But Atheists live in a religious world & thier values stem from religious ideals (you're still playing by their rules). Unless we have a purpose right & wrong are just subjective ideas. It's too hard to get this into 500 letters or less... =/
MrLittletomdj 6 months ago
@MrLittletomdj pt 2: You say "just subjective ideas." Yeah, in the same way that "gravity" is a subjective idea used to describe the behavior of matter under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean it's useless. an "Absolute" morality isn't something I think any of us want. I would rather have a thought out, reasoned morality that can function no matter its context, not an inflexible, dictatorial morality.
Hektor88 6 months ago
@Hektor88 I think we're misunderstanding one another here, simply because of the limitations of Youtube comments (500 characters). Gravity is not a subjective idea, it can be measured and predicted. What I said was not a false dichotomy as objective purpose & subjective purpose are two different things. The desire to reproduce is still subjective. I wasn't sugesting LOTF was an authority. I'll send you a message if you are interested. We're getting nowhere like this.
MrLittletomdj 6 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Agreed, let's move to private messages.
Hektor88 6 months ago
not to mention she doesnt "look" muslim or hindu lol
coltsrule5150 7 months ago
Well said
L4Pyro 8 months ago
@L4Pyro Thanks.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ 01:09 You show a picture of Randolph-Macon College an unaffiliated school to the school at which Dawkins spoke at....which at the time was Randolph Macon Womens College, which is now Randolph College since going co-ed........Ranolph-Macon College is a college in Ashand Virginia.
FreeThinkingCrusader 8 months ago
Yeah..Prof rules all!
Stevoukos 9 months ago
Wonderful video, thanks.
csnowutube 9 months ago
@csnowutube You're welcome.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
It's important to know something about these different religions. First of all Hinduism is pantheistic and polytheistic. Jesus is had been incorporated as one of the many gods. Islam also used to be polytheistic before Muhammad.
To anyone who understands this, Veritas is correct. Stupidity is the cause for this confusion over the different world views.
knowwaie 10 months ago
Comment removed
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
Pascal's wager no longer deserves a well thoughtout answer.
panterguy 1 year ago
@ProfMTH At about 8 min you refer to a statement by veritas saying he knows several people who are christians but are from other places. In a way this ALSO speaks to the point... they converted AFTER they moved here, was the implication I got. I don't know how he lists this as negative evidence when in fact it is positive evidence of the need of some people to conform to the "norm". Likely the norm where they came from was their previous religion.
Ammdar 1 year ago
I have a hypothesis on how to thin the ranks of the fanatically faithful,
During a child's formative years, education that focuses on critical thinking, connecting thoughts to testable evidence, recognizing poorly constructed arguments such as special pleading, strawmen, sample/confirmation bias, emotional arguments, build tolerance for diversity and the role of courage to speak unpopular viewpoints.
We can start with writing high interest children's stories. Beat em at their own game.
Highlyskeptical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Highlyskeptical "thin the ranks of the fanatically faithful" ... "build tolerance for diversity"
Are you retarded?...
knowwaie 10 months ago
@Highlyretarded "how to thin the ranks of the fanatically faithful" ... "build tolerance for diversity and the role of courage to speak unpopular viewpoints"
Oh, there is no contradiction here at all... Consistency of thought must be one of your strong points.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie I can see how you might be confused.
I am proposing that children be taught to be intolerant of the intolerant, which includes the fanatics of any religion.
I am proposing that children should be tolerant of any that do not use intellectually dishonest arguing tactics and have universal values we can all live with, regardless of the religion or lack thereof, that promotes individual freedom and the common good. Like helping the poor get job training,
Consistent?
Highlyskeptical 10 months ago
@Highlyskeptical "intolerant of the intolerant"
Your opposition to fanaticism is quite fanatical. Do you know what 'hypocrisy' means?
Good thing you're not an academic. You'd raise an army of psychopaths that would make the Nazi youth looks like girl scouts.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie So by your logic, seeking the death penalty for a killer is hypocritical too, as one can not be for and against killing at the same time (YOU would dismiss context there too?). Are you a hypocrite on this issue?
Something tells me you are very much in favor of the death penalty...
Highlyskeptical 10 months ago
If someone murders then that person should be put to death. You're probably opposed to that idea in your hypocrisy. Bizarre isn't it?
You really don't see the difference between these two things? First, we're not teaching children to kill murderers, the government does. Second, intolerance does not necessitate bodily harm. In that case the harm would be the crime. As it already is.
You're far too stupid for this. You're making too many mistakes to correct. Proceed in your psychosis.
knowwaie 10 months ago
@knowwaie LIsten genius, you called my opposition to fanaticism fanatical, while I would call it rational for a functioning society.
Only a fanatic would disagree.
Highlyskeptical 10 months ago
@Highlyskeptical Look, you said we should be intolerant of intolerance. I pointed out to you that the idea doesn't make sense because it, itself, is intolerant and thus hypocritical.
You tried to compare it to the death penalty, but it's a false comparison because physical infringement on others rights are already stated laws. You're inventing a new law which would be best called "thought crime".
You don't believe in freedom of thought. You're a sick fuck, just like all liberals. Get lost.
knowwaie 10 months ago
Wow...you go into extreme detail explaining the blatantly obvious. The correct response would be, "Veritas, I like you...buddy...but you are being an intentionally obtuse prick."
goobergel 1 year ago
@goobergel "The correct response...."
LOL. Well, I think mine was correct, too. Thanks just the same.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH This was an excellently thought out video response. I like your response quite a lot more...you get a cookie:)
goobergel 1 year ago
Dawkings only mentions jews as when referring to the non-existent "judeo-Christian" civilization which is really the great European Roman Catholic civilization, with nothing jewish about it, unless you still believe the talmudist/zionists of today are descendants from the Hebrews. But I digress... They both seem to be very careful in avoiding bringing the crimes of modern Jewry to the attention of the public. Not really an atheist, is he?
uckgcult 1 year ago
@dashan091 Prof',dont like the truth when it is not compatible with your atheism? Richard Dawkins says the same thing about "design" which he cant explain so he resorts to "yeh, but who designed the designer?" Only he fails to see the logic of such an agrument ad absurdum.
dashan091 1 year ago
A bad case of truth decay from Richard Dawkins google Melanie Phillips: the-truth-delusion-of-richard-dawkins This guy lives up to Darwins claim that semi-literate apes are quite incapable of knowing what telling the truth means “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
dashan091 1 year ago
What do u hope to prove by this video? Is it an attempt to get at the truth? To prove DOCTOR Dawkins as a philosopher of some renown? Or just an exercise in self -gratification? If atheism asserts the meaningless of life, isnt it just meaningless to affirm that everything is ultimately meaninglessness for tomorrow we die? Isnt death for the atheist as much a confirmation that it's like we never existed?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 What the hell are you blabbering about?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH why ridicule Christians who seek to live by Gospel values like non-violence, love of neighbor, forgiveness, humility, compassion for the hungry, the poor & marginalized but then u remain deftly silent about a morally bankrupt world brimming with racism, dishonesty & hatred, dodgy bankers, drug pushers, pedophile networks, porn addicts, power crazed despots, where greed & corruption are endemic?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "porn addicts, power crazed despots, where greed & corruption,," don't forget those dirty fags that god sends to hell just for being who they are. oh and the muslims, and the buddhists, and the atheists and the pantheists, and the tribal people who never heard the gospell, and the mormons and the countless hordes god doesn't want around him....besides christians. spare us man, really, spare us your sanctimoniousness, christianity is hate in loving drag.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan What a sad pathetic life if that's all u think religion has 2 offer! I dont pretend to know how much truth other monotheistic faith possess or how theyll stand before God. I do know that He is wise and compassionate enough to deal with our often failed struggle.
"God's thoughts are as high above our thoughts as the heavens are above earth."
Pax vobiscum
dashan091 1 year ago
I have identified God with the love that enhances life in the call to love our neighbor. It is to act toward them in such a way as to enhance their humanity. Once we break this language barrier and begin to think through the dimensions of speaking not about God, but about our experience of God, then I believe we could reconstruct the Jesus story on this basis and be within the context of Jesus' purpose as St. John defines it, "That we may have life and have it abundantly."
dashan091 1 year ago
So why do atheists waste, sorry spend so much of their miniscule life criticising religion or belief in God? Arent you threatened by a world on the break of financial collapse from dodgy Wall Street bankers, endemic corruption, tax evasion, & governments simply living beyond their means? Why not attack belief in aliens, astrology, fairies? Is it because no one is listening or does it give small meanings to an otherwise meaningless life?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "So why do atheists waste, sorry spend so much of their miniscule life criticising religion or belief in God?"
Among other reasons, to help unwitting theists to realize they're wasting their time following and defending an incoherent concept that exists only in their minds.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH So u hate in your face religion?
You pick up a newspaper &there are pages about it, people cant stop debating it at your work, u turn on the TV & there u have ads for upcoming events, as well as 10 mins of the nightly news, Weekend TV has endless rituals & replays &what about those Sunday traffic jams & full car parks. Now is this true or am I talking about a religion called football, that many live for, & others love to hate?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "So u hate in your face religion?"
In my answer to your question, where did I say anything about hate? It seems you have more than a bit of trouble following what I've actually said in response to your previous question. Please don't waste my time or yours until you remedy that. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "Among other reasons, to help unwitting theists to realize they're wasting their time"
But why, why not astrologists, sci-fi clubs, fairies? Since life is ultimately meaningless for the atheist, all u seem to be about is trying immortalise your microcosmic existence in cyberspace, giving your futile life tiny little meanings within a meaningless worldview.
dashan091 1 year ago
I should add that a friend of mine whose life is dominated by horoscopes is totally frustrated by my refusal to debate her star gazing theories. I am completely happy to remain totally indifferent even ignorant of her claims. Why? Because my worldview is totally justified by my Christian faith. Does your worldview give u meaning purpose & destiny? Whatabout fulfilment & hope?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "Does your worldview give u meaning purpose & destiny? Whatabout fulfilment & hope?" it sure does. especially since i know i can't just ride it out because everything will be awesome in heaven when i die, i know i have to makes things count while i'm still breathing. do you have friends/family who are not saved? they'll be in hell while you're in heaven. And you think you'll be enjoying yourself there while these people fry. If that gives your live "meaning", well, you're sick.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan U seem to invent scripture to serve your own ends. Can u think of anything Jesus has said to imply that friends and family are condemned? Can I suggest that the underlying tones of his mission is to preach God's love and forgiveness. Where are his words of eternal damnation? "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (it's a hard call sometimes)
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "U seem to invent scripture to serve your own ends. Can u think of anything Jesus has said to imply that friends and family are condemned?" sure, any verse where he states that those who don't go through him don't get to the father. or are you going to tell me friends and family get to piggyback into heaven if you're saved? so the question remains, how is heaven heavenly if some of whom you live are being simultaneously tortured?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@dashan091 "But why, why not astrologists, sci-fi clubs, fairies?" because again, none of those groups use slimey, underhanded, deceitful tactics to push their bullshit into science classes, to legislate their bigotry and superstition into civil law, and they generally don't show up at your door to annoy the shit out of you with their warnings about hell. "Since life is ultimately meaningless for an atheist" we create our own meaning, just like you do. We just understand that we create it.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@dashan091
"If atheism asserts the meaningless of life, isnt it just meaningless to affirm that everything is ultimately meaninglessness for tomorrow we die? Isnt death for the atheist as much a confirmation that it's like we never existed?"
A car will one day become useless, "meaningless" as it rusts and becomes one with the earth again. During the car's useful life - was it still meaningless/useless? Why do you still use a car if ultimately it will no longer exist?
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally So ur life has about as much meaning as a car, possibly even less so? Maybe u can live on in the bowel of others as an organ donor, have u signed up yet?
dashan091 1 year ago
I think u need to read what Sam Harris, Bertrand Russell and Dawkins say about the meaningless of the Atheist's worldview.
"There is no good, no evil just pitiless indifference. We're just slaves to our DNA and we dance to its music."
What a sad, pitiful & hopeless worldview that ignores the abundance of evidence for a personal creator.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"ur life has about as much meaning as a car, possibly even less so"
You missed the point entirely. The car can transport things and people, since the car will at some point breakdown and decay - does that make the car meaningless? I'm sorry that you can't concieve of a meaningful life without your mandmade construct god.
Why bother with the everday hassle of life, your only concern should be heaven. Don't bother with ultimately meaningless computers, cars, friends etc.
TurboDally 1 year ago
Sam Harris"We have to be honest, unremittingly honest. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. but our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. We can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able. If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about AN HOUR. What then, turbo?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
Oh wow those quotes are soooo powerful! What have I been doing all my life???? My life is meaningless without god! You've shown me that Christianity is the only way and that the god is the Christian god!!! Oh no why am I engaging in fruitless friendship that only give me satisfaction for AN HOUR???!!! lol.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally As I said:
"I think u (REALLY) need to read what Sam Harris, Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins say about the meaningless of life in the Atheist's worldview."
Do the words "rest in peace" have any significance for you?
We can answer the critic, but only God can open the heart. It is not in our ability, and not our responsibility, to regenerate the dead heart and give sight to the blind eyes of unbelievers. That is God's gracious work.
dashan091 1 year ago
So other than a few fleeting "vivid and intoxicating moments" what purpose do u exist other than as a pitiless slave to your DNA (Dawkins). Anyone who cares to take the atheist's worldview to its logical absurdity would see that a car has more purpose than a bunch of dust-bound DNA. Some might even say a car can be recycled, and even be a post-apocolyptic witness to man's failed intellect.
"answer the fool in his folly lest he seem wise in his own conceit" (Psalms)
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "Anyone who cares to take the atheist's worldview to its logical absurdity..' that's why it's so much better to live in a fantasy world with magical beings that bring you to an eternal happy place as long as you do the right things right? things like evolution rather than creation may be reality, but it's uncomfortable, so it's better to play the equivalent of 24 hour dungeons and dragons in your mind and live in fantasy land, because reality is scary, right?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dashan091 "So ur life has about as much meaning as a car, possibly even less so?" I've seen the light, I should kiss an angry god's ass and believe an unbelievable story so he allows me, a lowly disgusting sinner, to hang out with him and all the other sycophants eternally. Man this feels good, my life has meaning now! I can see why you're into it!
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Tell me Bill many well known atheist have had a very estranged paternal relationship and see any attempt to personify/relate God to a loving father figure as repugnant. Is this why u show so much much bitterness to such a concept? I suggest u google 'Psychology of Atheism" to explain the resentment of those who have come from loving family backgrounds.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "Is this why u show so much much bitterness to such a concept?" i have a great relationship with my dad and always has. i find the idea of god as a "loving father" repugnant, because of the way the character named god acts in the bible. shall we delve into the psychology of born-again christians? a large portion of the ranks of which are made up of people who completely screwed up their lives, and then latch on to a teaching that says they can forget all that and are forgiven?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
there's a reason why we (atheists) get testy when that "what if you're wrong" question is raised, because it's a last-ditch effort by theists to scare us.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Fear is the greatest motivator especially when the stakes are so high. As Pascal said, "the believer cannot be a loser by default but woe to the skeptic who should (cynically) claim God to be a delusion". Why does God's existence taunt u so? I have a friend whose life is consumed by astrology & gets frustrated by my total 'lack of interest" to debate the merits of horoscopes etc.
dashan091 1 year ago
Why? Because my Christian worldview gives meaning, purpose & destiny unlike atheism which must face the absurdity of life without God. Science has buried God is the atheists claim. But deep down they know that a purposeless unguided universe is inconsistent with universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. The only thing incomprehensible about the universe is that its comprehensible (A. Einstein). A rationally intelligible universe cries out for Creator.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "...my Christian worldview gives meaning, purpose & destiny...."
Actually, you only *believe* it does that. Since it has no basis in reality, it's doesn't truly give you anything. It's the functional equivalent of a placebo. And, hey, if that works for you, feel free to cling to it. However, my experience indicates that most people are ultimately interested in reality as opposed to delusion, no matter how comforting it may seem.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@dashan091 Deep down you know that the world was created by Ea Iluvatar from the flame imperishable. It is merely your lust for the power of the discord of Melkor that makes you follow this "Christ". You know that your god is a jealous god because he is Melkor. You know that death is the gift to man. You secretly know all this, but you deny it anyway, for such confusion is the way of Melkor.
Riff625 1 year ago
@Riff625 God by definition is the ultimate source of all truth, the eternal creator of all that exists. Man’s long history to uncover that reality & truth has undergone a spiritual evolution. That some attempts to define God have come & gone, is inevitable given man’s finite intellect. Just as more data has improved science’s understanding of atomic orbital theory, astrophysics is also showing us the God of the Bible is the best explanation of an exquisitely designed universe.
dashan091 1 year ago
Most religions emphasis that the search for truth &goodness is a continual and often failed struggle. As messages get refined &reinterpreted over centuries by different communities, religion has gone thru and is still in the process of a spiritual evolution. My role as an informed Christian is to argue its excellence not its claim to absolute truth. Religion is not just a matter of propositions, it’s a lived life in the consciousness and presence of God we don’t fully understand.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 If god is the source of truth, why don't we know everything? Why couldn't it even tell us where the sun goes at night? How did it create everything, given the law of conservation? A creator is inconsistent with that law. How can god be the best explanation if you have to assume he exists? God isn't an explanation at all. You can't show me what god is made of nor describe the processes which it utilizes to do impossible things.
Riff625 1 year ago
@dashan091 gods existence doesn't taunt me in any way. the existence of so may people in the 21st century who believe insane things such as the creator of the universe's best plan for mankinds salvation is a sacrifice in the desert one time in history, and then having humans travel around to convince people that it's a true story, and if people accept the story they are rewarded, if not, they're punished. that's what fascinates me, no taunting involved.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan So u hate in your face religion?
You pick up a newspaper &there are pages about it, people cant stop debating it at your work, u turn on the TV & there u have ads for upcoming events, as well as 10 mins of the nightly news, Weekend TV has endless rituals & replays &what about those Sunday traffic jams & full car parks. Now is this true or am I talking about a religion called football, that many live for, & others love to hate?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 i turn on me TV and i see another trial where someone is fighting to have prayer in public school, to have the 10 commandments in the public square, to have ID a/k/a creationism in drag snuck into another school district, where politicians call my secular democracy a "christian nation" and have wet dreams about it being a theocracy, fighting abortion rights on religious grounds, bothering me in a park by yelling about hell (cont.)
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Wow someone wanting to teach the 10commandants upsets you so?? No doubt Gospel values like non-violence, love of neighbor, forgiveness, humility, compassion for the hungry, the poor & marginalized also irks you? So u happy to remain deftly silent about a morally bankrupt world brimming with racism, dishonesty & hatred, dodgy bankers, drug pushers, pedophile networks, porn addicts, power crazed despots, where greed & corruption are endemic?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 yes, someone wanting to teach the 10 commandments upsets me, because besides the first 3, which are nothing more than the chest-pounding of a mythical desert war god, demanding obedience and strict adherence to one religion OR ELSE. As for the rest of your non-sequitor, none of the values you list are the property of "the gospell" they have existed in many cultures throughout human history and don't necessitate belief in fairy tales to act on.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@dashan091 (cont.) or someone is on the news "offended" by this or that criticism of their precious beliefs, or politicians who believe we're in "end times" anyway so preserving the enviornment is no big deal, or i see people like my mother, who was in a bad time in her life, and gets sucked into born again christian cults where they are indoctrinated into a rigid belief system that alienates them even from their own families. this is what i deal with every day, and more.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan "gods existence doesn't taunt me in any way." I dont waste endless hours on astrology websites or debating alien abduction. I havent lost a minutes sleep ever thinking other worldviews are superior because my Christian faith is supported by experience, reason, logic , science & not least of all Revelation. What would God's existence do to your worldview/lifestyle should u be wrong?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "What would God's existence do to your worldview/lifestyle should u be wrong?" this is like asking me "what would you do if you're wrong about godzilla existing? you live near a shore after all.." Until god decides to reveal himself in a direct way, not through an outdated book full of obvious falsehoods, or through ridiculous flawed human beings, i really have no reason to believe "he" exists. he wants a relationship, he can contact me. ok?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@dashan091 and please don't tell me "he'll contact you if you believe in him." If you can't see through the psychological trick pulled there by all religions "you have to buy it first, then you'll know it's true" i really don't know what to tell you. You mean if I assume something is true and psyche myself up really hard about it, I'll feel the "presence" of something in my life? Go figure...ask anyone, from ANY religion, and they'll tell you all about their "experiences" that "verify" the truth
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@dashan091 "As Pascal said...."
Wow, you're just trotting out *all* the hackneyed theistic nonsense.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@BillKiernan If I, as a theist am wrong, no harm done, I have lived a very fulfilling & happy life in the fellowship of likeminded people. In fact I think in some small way I have lived Gospel values & have even made this world a better place. Again, what do u say about a world in which dishonesty, racism, greed, intolerance & hatred is on the rise? "Love one another, as I have loved you."
So what if YOU are wrong?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 if you as a theist are wrong, you lived your life with your head in the clouds, dreaming about a reality that doesn't exist instead of facing this one. the world was just as fucked up when christianity was strong as it is now. theocracies and mass religiousity were not the "good old days." I'm not afraid of being wrong at all. a being that is capable of creating a universe sure as hell isn't the god that's in your bible, of that i rest assured.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
There is an interesting quote that I'll use to answer this:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."- Marcus Aurelius
TurboDally 1 year ago
@BillKiernan It seems like the ‘intellectually bright’ atheist has "nothing to prove" so he doesnt have to justify there is no God. How is that logical? I lack belief in aliens but I have no desire to waste endless hours on such websites justifying, challenging or ridiculing those who do. The fact is your futile worldview is totally threatened by a God who haunts your every waking moment. Since we both cant be right u cant claim the genetic fallacy like Dawkins.
dashan091 1 year ago
profmth let him grow up he may change is perspective point of view as he grow older
mystisme 1 year ago
I thought Dawkins' answer to the girl was perfect. The question the girl asked could, and should, be asked of herself.
I guess this just goes to show how your religious world view can twist your perception of things.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
I concur. I really don't see what Veritas' problem was with the answer. The point was that the girl's question arbitrarily presumes Christianity as the most likely antithesis to atheism. It's a false dichotomy, and I thought he handled it rather well.
The point is, yes, Dawkins could be wrong, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that reality defaults to Christianity.
Besides which, I can't believe Veritas actually believes that's a heavy question. He's such a joke.
Neilsama 2 years ago
@STFUNOWlol As we dont know everything nor can we disprove God's existence, everyone must admit to doubts. It is the arrogance and ignorance of scientists pretending to be philosophers who assume they are beyond reproach that is laughable. Any high school student of logic can tear Dawkins' main theme of God Delusion to threads. So STFUN what if you're wrong?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Assume that they are beyond reproach? Science thrives on criticism and skepticism. Religion is the one that squelches free thought and different ways of thinking.
Once again, we see how skewed religious thinking is.
STFUNOWlol 1 year ago
@STFUNOWlol So STFUN what if you're wrong? Still cant answer or wont answer? Maybe u should read Pascal's wager one more time. Of course if youre right we theists still win-happy healthy lives etc. Since God's existence is a plausible worldview the atheist is in a dilemma, however. BTW as a senior scientist, my worldview is in perfect harmony with modern science. Please read PCW Davies, Ken Miller Francis Collins and many so likeminded theists.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 - Wow. A lot to say to that. First of all, you CANNOT be a good scientist and a religious person. I can always, ALWAYS tell when a scientist is religious, just talking to them for a little bit. When you're religious, you just think different.
What if I'm wrong? Oh well. I was tricked, as far as I'm concerned. I see the possibility of a god being real being about the same as the Matrix being real. I am an educated individual, and I can't believe in something that looks obviously fake
STFUNOWlol 1 year ago
"u should read Pascal's wager one more time."
What if following Islam is the true religion and it turns out you were wrong?
What if SCIENTOLOGY is right?
I prefer to believe out of honesty not fear. I won't believe in god "just incase" as I would have to subscribe to so many religions. If your god does not value honesty, then I don't even want to know him.
"BTW as a senior scientist, my worldview is in perfect harmony with modern science."
You'll find the same said by atheistic scientists.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally I think u need to revisit the Gospels-e.g. the greatest commandment, the Sermon on the Mount, the call to nonviolence, compassion and HUMILITY. Maybe u prefer a morally bankrupt world where dishonesty, violence, greed and corruption are endemic, where your savings are systematically plundered by by ruthless traders and loan sharks, where gov's & individual live beyod their means.
dashan091 1 year ago
"You'll find the same said by atheistic scientists." Oh yeh? Can u name any scientist or evidence that has given rise to a conclusion "therefore God almost certainly doesnt exist" Dawkins says"greatest challenge facing science is to explain design in the universe". He's right about that one. Invoking a 'science of the gaps' he says physics may one day have its Darwin.
dashan091 1 year ago
The irony of such a view is that even if we could physically explain the huge number of exquisitely designed life-permitting parameters that make life possible there is still a catagory mistake. Mechanism and agency are two different realities. Gravity explains planetary motion but not its essence or origin or why there should be such elegant maths underpinning it. Then of course there are the chemical processes in the brain that marvel at it.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
I don't rely on the gospels for anything - they are not the origins of morality. Things like "don't kill, steal" etc predate the commandments in cultures that did not even follow the Abrahamic religions.
"Maybe u prefer a morally bankrupt world"
If this is the impression you get from me despite the quote I have mentioned - then it is YOU who are morally bankrupt.
TurboDally 1 year ago
you're so funny prof, you're about as evasive as they get. On one hand you self promote your insights to theology as a scholar of sorts, but you're not really a scholar of religion at all. And ultimately you think your snarky wit offers some rebuttal, when it doesn't. I too could repost all your remarks if need be, but then you would simply reply not to watch your videos. Why then make videos to engage the community only to mock rebuttal. What kind of debate do they teach at that school anyway?
romney27 2 years ago
"you're not rallly a scholar of religion at all"
I never claimed to be. I'm merely a student of it -- have been just about all of my life.
Perhaps one day, Romney, you'll have something worthwhile to say in a comment. How about you make that a resolution for 2010?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
touché Prof... isn't the half full glass is for drinking?
Happy New Year! to you too... gives me all week to think of something to say...lol peace.
romney27 2 years ago
Does romney litter veritas's vids with "you're rallly [sic] not an expert" as well as yours?
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
@wilfredthebold
I don't know. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@ProfMTH I think Athiests need to be more patient when explaining things to thiests.Remember there are years of programming going on in there plus when something held most dear is being torn apart there will always be a defense mechanism, like denial.Also spirituality(superstion) must be part of our evolution, just as Logical thinking is part of others.Just like a genius may have trouble intigrating in society, the creationist may have trouble grasping the concept of logic and reasoning
hylo1111 1 year ago
I'm all for being patient, Hylo1111. However, one's patience can be tried and even exhausted by a person. We are, after all, only human.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I know, but but sometimes people are driven away form learning if they are belittled or insulted. I know some one like Thunderfoot tries to be respectful, but even his titles of his videos can be agitating to a creationist. Aronra is actually one of the best to learn from. He hits you with facts, and he does so in a non agressive way. He just hits you hard and fast with facts and with humor. I feel like I was in Unversity for 2 months after five minutes of his vids lol
hylo1111 1 year ago
@hylo1111 one more thing, we are only monkeys
hylo1111 1 year ago
Hylo, perhaps I'm missing your intended point here. Are you suggesting that I fail to be sufficiently patient with believers or are do you feel that I too strongly sided with Richard Dawkins in the video or is it something else? Thanks.
By the way, I'm a big fan of both people you mentioned.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH No im talking about Athiests in general not you
hylo1111 1 year ago
Why is it ok for my family to ridicule me and tell me that I am going to be tortured for eternity because I don't believe in their invisible friend? Yet at the same time it is intolerable and insulting that I suggest your "imaginary friend" is merely a delusion?
EldonGuyre 1 year ago
@hylo1111 I'm patient: explain if logical absolutes exist or what your ultimate source of truth is. Is your mind just chemical reactions &electrical impulses? How do u account for design & Big Bang model (Penrose/Hawkingss Singularity theorem)? Is everything just matter &energy or are there abstract realities? Can u account for the universal realization that nearly all human beings throughout history have postulated a realm beyond and greater than the physical?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 So if you take a Jehova Witness, a Southern Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Budist, a gnostic, a Diest, and a North American First nation, who has the Ultimate truth? And yes your mind is just chemical and electrical impulses. Otherwise we would not need to seperate the brain in severe epilepsy, or use an electrode in the brain to slow down and stop severe tremors.
hylo1111 1 year ago
If he had the mind and the ability to choose something else other than Christianity, why not respect other's choice of others who choose Christianity as well.
Dr.Dawkins is not the first one but has there were many preceding to him subscribing to a false idea that majority is the rule of the day. Majority people believed that Earth was flat some point in time. Majority people believed that Human beings came from monkeys sometime.
paulanbu 2 years ago
Also going by his logic, may I present another data that he was influenced by Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton as he claims, therefore he is biased with majority of his influencers being atheists what else can he speak.
paulanbu 2 years ago
It is nice to hear Dr.Dawkins comments on if you are raised in a country with majority Christian influence you would be a Christian, but he is self contradicting as he is not Christian though he is in Oxford - England where 71.6% of English people identify as Christians.
paulanbu 2 years ago
"It is nice to hear Dr. Dawkins comments on if you are raised in a country with majority Christian influence you would be Christian, but he is self contradicting as he is not Christian though he is in Oxford - England where 71.6% of English people identify as Christians."
Paulanbu, where did Dr. Dawkins say that one *must* be a Christian if one is from a country that is majority Christian?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@ProfMTH Come on, Proffy, why does the truth sit lossely with the atheist? Dawkins invokes the genetic fallacy in most of his debates. He arrogantly resorts to it when he's challenged to answer the audience question "what if youre wrong?" But why should truth matter when a semi-literate apes brain is designed for survival & not to ask 'why' questions about meaning, purpose & destiny?
dashan091 1 year ago
hehe he disabled comments
mrtnsamson 2 years ago
That's because he's not active on his YouTube channel now.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
At around 10:15 or so, you state that Jewish and Muslim theology and apologetics are at least as well developed and refined as Christian theology and apologetics.
While this may be true for Jewish thought, Muslim religious scholars have yet to publish a fully developed systematic theology. Additionally, all of the evidence available indicates that the Quran and Sunnah evolved over a period of centuries.
Just pointing out a possible error of category, here...
stronzo5785 2 years ago
More correctly, I think, you're offering your opinion of the state of Muslim theology and apologetics.
By the way, the Bible "evolved" over centuries, too.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
My opinion doesn't change the fact that there is no published systematic theology of Islam of which I'm aware, in any language.
The Bible is a collection of 66 texts, written over a 1500 year period. We have evidence that the content of significant portions of the OT remained largely unchanged over thousands of years. I wouldn't categorize this as "evolution."
We have no similar evidence for the Quran and Sunnah...reference the work of Gerd-R. Puin for more information.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
Please. The process of developing the Jewish canon took place over approximately four centuries. One cannot even speak of one Christian canon since to this day Christians don't agree about what texts are and are not canonical. In many branches of Christianity, formal determinations of the canon weren't published until the 16th or 17th century. You happen to belong to a wing of Christianity that holds to the 66-book canon. Millions of Christians believe the canon to be larger than that.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That opinion is somewhat uninformed. Writings were acknowledged as inspired as early as the 1st Century AD, within the book of Acts in the NT. Historians use this book as an authoritative text, so I don't think that this is circular.
The first canon was the Muratorian canon (ca. 170AD), which is comprehensive with the exception of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The 66 book canon is not some late, controversial development. And Islam still has no systematic theology.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
The 66 books of the Bible were named and codified as early as the Council of Hippo, in 393AD. We have much manuscript evidence from prior to that, as well, so that we can make informed inferences as to the accuracy of these documents.
Though Roman Catholicism does include the Apocrypha in their canon, they also include the same 66 books.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"The first canon was the Muratorian canon (ca. 170 AD), which is comprehensive with the exception of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John."
First, it's quite funny that you would call "comprehensive" a list that leaves out nearly 20% of the NT texts you believe to be canonical. Second, the text of the Muratorian fragment is believed to have been written anywhere between the late 2d century and the 4th century. Third, it is at best odd that you're presenting what you and most...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...most (if not all) other Christians would regard as incomplete NT canon in support of your claim that there was no "evolution" of the Bible. To the extent that the Muratorian listing demonstrates anything, it is precisely the opposite of your claim. So you're making my point for me here.
"The 66 book canon is not some late, controversial development."
Take that up with, e.g., Catholic and the various Orthodox Christians, whose canons include more books.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"The 66 books of the Bible were named and codified as early as the Council of Hippo, in 393AD."
The Council of Hippo promulgated a 72-book canon, Stronzo. I suspect you know that and tried to slip something past me hoping I didn't know about this. Spare me any apologetic shell games. I have no patience for them. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Please source your argument about the Council of Hippo. Additionally, check the writings of Origen, ca 280AD. Your original assertion was that Christians continue to fight over the canon...we don't, in spite of your attempt to rewrite history.
Nice try, Professor.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"Your original assertion was that Christians continue to fight over the canon...."
Actually, what I said was that Christians continue to DISAGREE about the canon. You don't agree that the biblical canon contains 72 books, do you, Stronzo?
"Please source your argument for the Council of Hippo."
Among many sources, "The Canon Debate" edited by Lee McDonald and James Sanders.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Can you be a bit more specific? I have that book, and I'd like a citation, since you are unaware of Islamic scholarship that would provide warrant to your claim that Islamic theology and apologetic is equivalent to that of Judaism and Christianity...
Thanks in advance.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"Can you be more specific? I have that book...."
I think it's funny that you've made a whole load of assertions without any basis, but you're hokking me to provide citations for everything. In any case, for a primary source I refer you to Canon 36 of the Council of Hippo, which says, in pertinent part, "The canonical books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the books of Kings, the two books of [Chronicles], Job, the Psalms of David...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (minor) prophets, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." As for "The Canon Debate", there are a number of spots to which I can refer you, but I'll stick with just one for now. Have a look at Daniel Harrington's essay "The Old Testament in the Early Church and Today", which says, in pertinent part, "The Council of Hippo has Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees."
ProfMTH 2 years ago
And Stronzo5785, having been proven wrong, falls silent. LOL.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Naw...just got tired of the bad argumentation. I quoted the Council of Hippo, but I could have easily quoted the Council of Carthage, or the lists of Clement, or Polycarp or Irenaeus...but your use of tu quoque avoided the original point...
There remains no published systematic theology for Islam, in any language. Additionally, Muslims simply re-use the same refuted apologetic originally used by other heretics...error of category, if I've ever seen one.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"just got tired of the bad argumentation"
Well, don't be too hard on yourself. You were factually incorrect. Happens to everyone.
"I quoted the Council of Hippo...."
No, you didn't. You merely made an assertion about it, one that was incorrect. *I* quoted the Council, specifically, Canon 36, as well as a scholarly article, both of which showed that the Council embraced more than the 66-book Bible Protestants embrace. You were wrong, but it seems you're struggling against that.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"I could have easily quoted the Council of Carthage...."
And how would that have helped you here? It also included the books of Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and so on.
"the lists of Clement"
And how would that have helped you here?
"Polycarp or Irenaeus"
Same question. By the way, you should probably be careful with Irenaeus since in "Against Heresies" he claims he had it on apostolic authority that Jesus was executed at or about the age of 50.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Muslims use the same refuted apologetic originally used by other heretics...."
Such as the cosmological argument that Christians have been using for centuries? lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You may have misunderstood why I quoted these councils, in your efforts to redirect the argument. Your assertion of an evolving canon and your categorization of that as my central point is proof that you are just trying to intellectually bully me, instead of confronting your error...
I'll state my point again, in a vain attempt to keep you on topic...Islam has neither a developed, published systematic theology, nor does it have an original apologetic. If you believe so, you are mistaken.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"you are just trying to intellectually bully me"
If, as it seems, you equate my pointing out facts in contrast to and correction of your erroneous claims about the canon as intellectual bullying, then you're correct. You've made bogus claims about the canon and, it seems, cannot bring yourself to deal with that. I suspect you tend to count on people not knowing the facts when you start blathering about this or that council. Well, I do know what I'm talking about. Get used to it or move on.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
As for you assertions about Islamic apologetics and theology, please provide your sources. Thanks. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I only said that Islam has no systematic theology and apologetic, and you ad-hom me because I ask you to source your assertion at about 10:00 of your video, that equates Islam with Christianity and Judaism in their theology and apologetic...why?
In equating Islam, a faith with no tradition of scholarship, with Christianity and Judaism, faiths that founded Harvard and Princeton and Yale and...well, you understand my wanting to call you on this error.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
I await a source for your assertion for some solid Islamic systematic theology. Can't you simply provide a reason for this?
stronzo5785 2 years ago
Wow...who's spun up, now?
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"you ad hom me"
LOL! Funny that you equate having your assertions proven wrong with an ad hominem argument.
As for sources, I await yours with respect to *your* claim about Islamic theology and apologetics.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I do take up that point with my Catholic friends...they feel the way that I do, that the Christian canon was codified in the 4th century...your allegation that Christians argue about the canon is gone, sir.
As far as your categorization of the canon as some point of contention among biblical Christians, you make a mountain out of a molehill, and your error of category remains...
Islam has no systematic theology. Your attempts to distract are much like my Muslim friends...ineffectual.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"...your allegation that Christians argue about the canon is gone, sir."
'Disagree' was the word I used. It must have truly gotten under your skin since you keep trying to change what I said.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Yes, comprehensive considering that this document came out in 170AD, and refutes your assertion of a late-breaking canon.
I'm a former Catholic, and no priest whom I know would dispute any of the 66 books upon which we agree.
Oh, and you forgot about the fact that Islam has no systematic theology. Just wanted to remind you, sir.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"...comprehensive considering this document came out in 170AD...."
Again, you must know that it's dated between 170 CE and the fourth century CE. So, again, please. And, again, your claim that it was "comprehensive" for its time simply makes *my* point about the "evolution" of the Bible.
"...no priest whom I know would dispute any of the 66 books upon which we agree."
But again you also know -- or should know -- that your Protestant canon is shorter than the canons embraced by...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Again, don't waste my time with apologetic shell games. Last warning.
"Oh, and you forgot about the fact that Islam has no systematic theology...."
No, I didn't. I dealt with it in my very first reponse to you. It's your opinion. You're entitled to it. Based on your comments, it's clear you haven't mastered the facts about your own holy book all that well. If I were you, I'd address that deficiency before I went off talking about other religions.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
My original point:
"Muslim religious scholars have yet to publish a fully developed systematic theology."
You'd obviously rather dicker with "tu quoque" argumentation than confront your error, the one about the lack of a developed Islamic theology and apologetic.
Quick reminder...you are the one who stated that Islam has a developed theology and apologetic, not me. That is your opinion, and I simply pointed that out.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
Source your assertion about the dating of the Muratorian canon, please.
Also, please source your assertion that Islamic theology and apologetic is as well developed as that of Judaism and Christianity.
Thanks, in advance, for helping me out, here.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"Source your assertion about the dating of the Muratorian canon, please."
Online there's
earlychristianwritings (dot) com (/) muratorian (dot) html, which notes that
"[s]ome have redated the canon to the fourth century." It's hardly a controversial matter.
"...please source your assertion that Islamic theology and apologetic is as well developed as that of Judaism and Christianity."
Individual conversations I've had with scholars/colleagues who have expertise about the matter.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Individual conversations I've had with scholars/colleagues who have expertise about the matter (Islam)."
Please quote these individuals and their work on Islam and Islamic theology.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
Wow, a "source" infinite regress. Stronzo, are you sure your real question isn't on the origin of the universe? If the apologetics of Islam are not as well founded as those of Judaism, it seems irrelevant to me. The fact that there are 1,600,000,000 Muslims would tend to indicate that they've found their own way of indoctrinating their children. I think you've lost touch with the context of ProfMTH's original statement.
southmcl 2 years ago
No, my real question was the error of category committed by ProfMTH in stating in his video that Islamic theology and apologetic is as well developed as that of Judaism and Christianity. He is incorrect in this assertion, and he was throwing red herrings out left and right to distract from his error.
I didn't bring up the origin of the universe...that is off topic.
There are other reasons for the number of Muslims in the world...you're off topic again.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"red herrings"
Translation: Stronzo's obvious errors about the Christian canon.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Alt. translation: ProfMTH's bias against Christianity and unwillingness to admit fault.
When you opine about Islam out of willful ignorance, and present yourself as educated, you show your true colors. I pointed out an error of category, and you overreacted and became evasive.
I said nothing about the Canon, you did. I tried to point out a flaw in your reasoning, and you self-sourced.
I hope my kids don't attend your institution...you have my prayers.
stronzo5785 2 years ago
"ProfMTH's bias against Christianity and unwillingness to admit fault."
That's hilarious coming from you, a Christian, who made false and easily disproven claims about the Christian canon and then, when proven wrong, petulantly stomped off without admitting your errors.
"I said nothing about the Canon...."
I repost your quotations if your recollection needs refreshing.
"I hope my kids don't attend your institution...."
If they're like you, it's unlikely they could get admitted.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Stronzo, I think you are the one who is off topic. You've done n