Added: 4 years ago
From: 32bitwonder
Views: 217,932
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (1,819)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • It was interesting to me that the host actually had the most interesting point, not Dawkins. "There are a billion christians and a billion muslims and four billion people who are neither, yet we have to follow their rules." (I'm paraphrasing a bit but that's basically what he said). No one seems to be able to answer for that. Seriously WHY???

  • Damn, I thought it would last an hour.

  • It's not often I disagree with an authority like the great biologist Richard Dawkins. But speaking as a more humanist and human history oriented person, I don't think accident is an appropriate answer to a complex question about why certain "trends" "happens" to occur at a specific time or place. It's not always about the individual interference but also about the fertile ground which accommodate the growth of the plant in question.

  • Part One my friends:

    watch?v=bNHo00gjHRk

  • shared

  • that tie looks australia themed!

  • I like this George Stroumboulopoulos. He comes of as knowing what he talks about... and that is a fresh breeze. Keep it up.. from what I can see here I wish I could get this show in Sweden.

  • Isn't Richard Dawkins a lovely and charming man when he doesn't have a creationist spitting bile at his face.

  • @cormacbuzz I think he's lovely and charming even when a delusional creationist is spitting bile at his face :)

  • @LittleBabyBum I agree :)

  • Really enjoyed this....

  • I do not believe in organized religion and I do not believe a word that Richard Dawkins speaks... Negativity spawns death. Our Creator is a balance of Good and Evil, as we are.. yet we tip to the good side.. .. we could have killed ourselves long ago... why are we here.... PLASTIC:)

  • I was surprised who polite the interviewer was on this issue most people dont care about the truth and instantly want to interrupt dawkins.. Good interview in my book... I wish Mr. Dawkins was still alive though...

  • @Iemota21 Man, don't try to spread that bullshit, man....

  • @Iemota21 Richard Dawkins is still alive..

  • @Iemota21 What do you mean? Richard Dawkin's is still alive. Unless I'm confused here and what you really mean is that you wish he was more active. In which case I'd let you know that he just recently released a new book mainly aimed at the younger generation but can be read by all to give simple explanation of all the things around us and things relating to that matter.

  • I disagree with Dawkins that global consciousness will be raised and turned in favour of atheism. It is more concerning that his abusive style will polarize people around these sensitive issues. One can see this in these email venues for example. He is modelling violent conversations using personal vindictive and insult - which you can notice in many of the comment sections and discussion pages. Its disgusting actually.

  • @margiedemello - Can you elaborate with examples, please?

  • @kenziebear44 It is an opinion, I think if you don't notice what I mention above, you probably think it is not harmful, that it is ok to argue llike that, esp. with enemies! I would have to troll through all materials now to get actual quotes. Two things off hand, one on his site, IQ testing disparaging theists as less intelligent, not sure if that was serious, the second, off hand, when Tyson 'rebukes' D publically and he essentially says F off. The Beyond Belief panel, see emails on that.

  • @kenziebear44 The issues seem to me more polarized and agressive in US than here in Can.

  • @kenziebear44 The issues seem to me more polarized and agressive in US than here in Can. I could be wrong, my impression.

  • @margiedemello I agree that that's the case from the interactions I've had with Americans, but I think there might also be a cultural element to that because they're used to strong polarizations in politics, race relations etc. so they might be accultured to react differently to these issues, to react to them in very loud, angry, confrontational ways like people do on U.S. news.

  • It's frustrating because the interviewer is so objective and professional, but for some reason I can't quite put my finger on I can't stand him

  • The best part about this debate is that it is self perpetuating, because the premise for it is based on the unknowable.

    At least it gives people something to think about.

    Anyway lets just say hypothetically at some point in the future science PROVES the existence of God. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Would it stop war or cause more wars?

    Think about that.

    Actually it would cause many more wars, and those wars would rage on until someone wins the battle over whose God it is.

  • Comment removed

  • The Hour is the first show to have interviewed Richard Dawkins, and not come off as a bunch of morons. This was wonderful!

  • @Kith000 it's cuz we're canadian ;)

  • @Kith000 Watch his interview of Chris Hedges and you will find out where he really stands.

  • dawkins is deluded he thinks the universe created itself by nothing for no reason

  • @Kep0v Yep, I agree. Good thing no respectable scientist, Dawkins included, has ever made such a ridiculous claim.

  • @Kith000 william lane craig is doing it kinda

  • @Kep0v Why is it that when people like Dawkins say they don't know how or why the universe is here you assume that means "nothing." He doesn't know, and neither do you.

  • I've been watching too many fox news interviews, its mind blowing to see someone treat an atheist with respect and intelligence. Why does fox news still exist?

  • @yodellikeyoumeanit09 Visit us in europe. It sounds as you would like it here ;)

  • @yodellikeyoumeanit09 well.. *duh* you just answered your own question. :D... *realizes what that means*... :'(

  • The Hour makes me want to move to Canada

  • The fact is that many of us are fed up with religion being shoved in our faces. We'd politely said little to criticize people's private beliefs because, wrongly, we thought religion would just fade away in the face of all the amazing achievements of honest inquiry. It hasn't, so now we have to be more confrontational. It's rather like taking away a baby's dummy or weaning it; there will be resistance but it's time to grow up.

  • The interviewer was actully really good

  • The counter argument to blind faith is that it in't blind because the person has a "gut feeling"

  • @1091Floyd21 That's rather silly, I mean we definetly shouldnt use emotion to dictate reason. A Muslim, Hindu, Christain will have a gut feeling about a God(s), they cant all be true due to their obvious contradiction, so that kind've reasoning is incorrect. I mean an emcaiated Anorexic will calim they have a gut feeling that they are overweight, a child may have a gut feeling that Santa is real. Emotion shouldn't be used to dictate fact

  • Comment removed

  • I find George to be a very good interviewer. Which is to say fair and capable of posing questions worthy of the guest.

  • I like his tie.

  • Top marks to George Stroumboulopoulos. He interviews Dawkins very fairly and lets him talk. So many interviewers jump on him before he has finished speaking.

  • Is it more delusional to believe in a God that does not exist, or to not believe in a God that does exist?

  • methodical or mystical. They both have power.

  • This host is like Tony Danza's & Ralph Machio's love child. He doesn't seem smart enough to interview Dawkins.

  • want to know something really special?

    go to "after the rain nzoz1978" and find my 3 comments.

  • I think more interviews should be conducted this way. Yes completely opposing view points coming to a head in debate helps the viewers to take something from both sides and bodes for a more balanced opinion overall, but giving a guy a chance to answer questions posed to him and respecting his response and then challenging it intellectually is very refreshing and I hope more interviews are conducted for members of any opposing viewpoints in this fashion 

  • I would like to thank Gorge Washington for fighting for our freedom against the Church of England’s Middle Eastern Aramaic Spaghetti Monster which is not the word of God. Sincerely one Free Secular Nation above all Religious theocracy, as a free American I refuse to be forced to bow to a dead Middle Eastern man who has been elected to be my God and who I would not trust my money with which is based on blind faith for a fool.

  • Fucking pop sound at the beginning almost blew out my ears !!!, edit you fucking videos correctly please.

  • And his only explanation for life is aliens. I love this guy.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon Chinese whispers. Someone asked him if life could have been started by aliens and he said 'yes, but eventually life itself must have evolved in a gradual, unguided way'

  • @Octamed Yes, but when you say life was started by aliens, you enter infinited regress. Well where did the aliens come from? See what I'm saying?

  • @SouthCarolinaSon That's what I'm saying. He said that aliens could have started OUR life, but THEIR life would have had to have gone through the same process that we think ours did. So his point is the regression eventually must come back to unguided processes starting from something very simple. The point isn't really about evolution, but more about abiogenesis, the initial start of self replicating organisms.

  • @Octamed Yes, I know that but where do you get the "something very simple?" That's what infinite regress is.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon Well there's a few decent hypothesis on that, all of which would do the job, but of course they aren't to the status of a theory because they're insanely hard to prove. If you're talking about where did sub-atomic particles and the like come from then I've got NO IDEA :) This is where I'd be looking at if I were religious. Which is weird as I've never heard religious people argue about that, it seems to only be evolution, which is proven, or abiogenesis, which is explainable

  • @Octamed I'm not talking about sub-atomic particles. That's a whole other discussion that also cannot be answered without a Creator God. I'm talking about life. The first cell. And the only type of evolution to be proven is micro-evolution, which doesn't even begin to explain macro-evolution, which scientists so dogmatically pound into our heads as if it were fact.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon no scientists i know would teach abiogenesis as a fact. And macro-evolution, if even really a scientific term, can never be proven by your standard because you only believe it if it is something you can see, touch and feel. But guess what? How can I make you see a process that takes millions of years? You tell me!

  • @Casshyr Which is why it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon well, no, not quite true. You said you believe in micro-evolution because it is proven, right? Macro-evolution is simply a combination of micro-evolution, except on a time-scale of millions of year more. So your logic of believing in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like me saying i believe 1+1=2, but i don't believe 1+1+1+1+....+1 will eventually equal to 1 million. See the point?

  • @SouthCarolinaSon ..

    Faith in the supernatural is the opposite of belief in reason, logic and evidence. The difference is rationality requires study and intellectual effort, while religion is simply feel-good fairy tales for adults.

    The Theory of Evolution has mountains of evidence from multiple academic disciplines to confirm it.

    Religion is only ancient mythology that has in the past, and continues for many today to serve as a stop-gap explanation for our world and it's nature.

  • @bencubed Faith in the supernatural does not make sense to people because you try to figure it out using physical means, such as science. Science is a tool given by God to make sense of the physical universe around us, so when you try to use it to explain the metaphysical, it fails.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon .

    Your denial of the factuality of evolution is pathetic.

    And your choice to believe mythology even more so.

    BTW, the possibility that amino acids as building blocks for first life on earth arriving via meteorites is what exogenesis is about, not little green man seeding our planet.

    -

  • @SouthCarolinaSon God is supernatural, Science is observational and rational thinking. You cannot have an irrational concept produce a rational concept, much less the rational concept try to prove the irrational. The two have no business with each other, and using them otherwise in an argument to prove your point is futile because people who aren't idiots see through it.

  • @devilzsmile The people who aren't idiots would notice that I was not trying to prove God using Science, I was, in fact, stating the opposite, that you cannot prove God using Science. You also assumed that God is irrational, which He is when looking through a solely Scientific paradigm, as Science cannot deal with the metaphysical. With a couple small exceptions, you basicly completely reiterated my last comment.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon No... you said God gave us science. Do you not see the contradiction of that statement? An irrational concept, cannot and will not, produce a rational concept. I have not reiterated your last comment at all. You are discussing the logical steps to a conclusion, I'm arguing that your premise is wrong in itself.

  • @devilzsmile Sure, that's a great point if you think that God is irrational. You have to make that assumption if you're going to make that point, and if that isn't proven or shown, then you cannot use it as one of the premises of your argument or the argument doesn't hold water. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon No. The default position for me is to say God is irrational. You (and others) have made the claim he is rational. You (and again, others) have the responsibility to prove that he is rational, it is not mine to prove he is not. There is no evidence that specifies that he does exist. Until there is, he is irrational, regardless of anyone's views on what God is or isn't.

  • @devilzsmile The universe itself is ample evidence of God. Say that you are in the middle of the desert and you stumble apon a Rolex watch. The most rational conclusion is to say that there must be a watchmaker. Just humans themselves are many many times more complex than a watch. You look at the world around you and the most rational conclusion is that a Designer must exist.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon Please do not use the Watchmaker analogy as your argument. It is an age old argument that fools only the stupid. For example, who designed the watchmaker. Another example, a watch is physical, the watchmaker must therefore be physical. Can you tell me God is a physical entity, and if he is, where is he? Again, you have no evidence to prove that God exists, or ever did. Your claim is false, until otherwise provable... in which it isn't.

  • @devilzsmileThe universe physical,who designed the universe?God is non-physical.Please tell me the law that says physical things produce other physical things.It isn't possible.Just like the spontaneous "bursting into existence"of the universe,which atheists so adamantly and dogmatically emphasize.Again,I have all the evidence in the world for God,such as the world itself.The complexity of life, the ecosystem, etc.The list goes on and on. Atheism: "We cannot see God, therefore He doesn't exist."

  • @SouthCarolinaSon You are truly deluded or very much misinformed. For something physical to be created, would it not require a creator who is physical? And nowhere, do Atheists "adamantly and dogmatically" emphasize that the universe burst into existence. The Big Bang is not an example of something created from nothing.

    As for your so called "evidence", can you definitively tell me everything around you was created by God? Could I not make the same claim that a Unicorn created everything?

  • @devilzsmile Who ever made it law that physical creation requires a physical creator? I wasn't referring to the Big Bang, just the universe in general. It had to get here somehow. You could say a unicorn created everything, be my guest.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon The law of the conservation of mass is a distant simplification. I can refer to the elements of this universe as a product of a reaction, and God as a catalyst. A catalyst, in this sense must be physical for something to happen. When a catalyst ignites this reaction, evidence of the catalyst are found in the product. Again, no proof of this, have you or others have been shown. Despite this, you have shown yourself that the Watchmaker argument in this case, means nothing.

  • @SouthCarolinaSon

    You obviously haven't read the book if you say something like that...

    Mother Nature bless Richard Dawkins :)

  • So what if he is ? What if you are ?

  • Dawkins is a Luciferian promoting that agenda... of rational thought, left brain logic. He promotes false information about our origins, in order to keep humans unaware of their connection to God, or realize their full potential. If you don't believe in God, you will be controlled by the adversary, whether you are conscious of it or not.

  • @SovereignBeing did you know that the foo fighters last 3 albums were written about what i have discovered. go to veruca salt "all hail me" and find my 3 comments to find out why. dont you want to know the truth? you may have to press "see all" once there. regards.

  • @SovereignBeing At what age did you begin to believe this, were you brainwashed, and what proof do you have of this bullshit.

  • @dalhar20 your reaction to my words is proof enough that it is truth i speak..If it wasn't true, you would have no reaction to it...

  • @SovereignBeing my reaction itself has nothing to do with the truth, but with the lies you speak. You are unable to bring evidence to anything mentioned before hand. It seems to me you are delusional, and I am sorry for you. Unless you are a internet troll which I assume you are not.

  • @SovereignBeing Show me how God created everything in the bible. If his information is false then the bible might have the correct information

  • One Free Nation (((Not))) Under God

  • @MagicTellaVision did you know that the foo fighters last 3 albums were written about what i have discovered. i am not lying. go to veruca salt "all hail me" and find my 3 comments to learn why. dont you want to know the truth? you may have to press "see all" once there. regards.

  • It's obvious that Richard takes such a hateful stance because he is a closet homosexual and needs an outlet to release his internalized rage. I remember on a South Park episode, Richard Dawkins was fucking Mr. Garrison up the ass saying "Oh yeah Richard, pound my ass like a monkey Richard!" LOL

  • @metalslut1 posted "It's obvious that Richard takes such a hateful stance because he is a closet homosexual"

    Not sure how you make that connection

    Are you saying atheism has link to homosexuality? If that is the case how come so many of the church have been fucking young boys for decades and getting away with it? Mainly because the powers in the church have been moving these perverts around different parishes to avoid prosecution

  • @pinball1970 BTW, Richard sure WAS pounding Mr. Garrison's ass some hard too...almost LIKE a monkey. Coincidence? I think not. LOL

  • @metalslut1

    I think you have some sort repressed anal sex fixation

    You have posted three times and mentioned “ass pounding”

    Perhaps you would like to get something of your chest?

    Share with the group? Its good to talk- we can always get to the bestiality later

  • @pinball1970 Hahahaha...that's a good one! Just reiterating what Richard Dawkins and his loyal disciples, like yourself, like to do with their spare time, that's all. South Park merely satirized this fact when Richard Dawkins absolutely walloped Mr. Garrison right up the hole. Coincidence? I think not. LOL :)

  • @metalslut1

    Ok thats four times- seriously see someone and talk it out or buy some serious lube and get it over with

    Dawkins was using a metaphor you know like jesus did?

    Didnt god mentioning spreading his seed on fertile ground rather than stone or thorns? - he was not actually intending the male part of the congragation to knock one out over the church lawn

  • @metalslut1

    somehow metal slut and hard rock music does not go with the sweet love of jesus in my head

    You do it different in the states - clearly

  • @metalslut1 I make the connection because Richard Dawkins likens atheism to a homosexual coming out of the closet in his interview. Richard also hates spirituality and religion in all forms and has not tried to hide it. Richard Dawkins' internalized hate appears to stem from his repressed homosexuality. Just like on South Park, where he pounded Mr. Garrison up the ass, he needs to come to grips with his own sexuality. "Oh yeah Richard, pound my ass like a monkey!" :)

  • This is one of the few interviews where the interviewer isn't just constantly badgering him. Hitchens got the same nice treatment on the Hour, too.

  • @Jotto999 in other word, one of the few interviewers who is "fair and balance"

  • Dawkins gets the shit beat out of him in my video..

    So will you if you're an atheist.

    You'll have BLIND FAITH alone to parade your

    ignorant, unsupportable posturing

  • @WayneLynch69 Really? You have a video of someone beating the shit out of Richard Dawkins? Doubt it.

  • @WayneLynch69 " if you're an atheist.

    You'll have BLIND FAITH alone to parade your

    ignorant, unsupportable posturing"

    Religions require mindless blind faith not atheism

  • Scientists are hardly helped when one of their champions immerses himself in the emollient of his own enthusiasm...He is as responsive to criticism as a black hole in space. He has remarked, "if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."..These comical declarations may be abbreviated by observing that [Dawkins] is persuaded not only is science a very good thing, but no other thing can be good at all.—David Berlinski, THE DEVIL'S DELUSION

  • I'm intrigued, will read his book this summer. I hope it's not all rhetoric lacking any factual evidence as he most prominently noted that this would be referred to as "blind-faith." However, I must express my discontent with the following:

    "You thought religion might be gone by then""Yea I think I did"

    Atheists are a form of religion, despite his arrogant interview, he convinced me I should look into his book. Also, has anyone here looked at the history of science? Hello! Talk about blind faith

  • @lostmyhead Don't be stupid! The man is a false prophet! He's an intellectual fraud! Antony Flew calls him out, THERE IS A GOD: HOW THE WORLD'S MOST NOTORIOUS ATHEIST CHANGED HIS MIND. David Aikman, former militant atheist, calls him out in THE DELUSION OF DISBELIEF:WHY THE 'NEW ATHEISM' IS A THREAT TO YOUR LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. He's excoriated in Dinesh D'Souza's LIFE AFTER DEATH:THE EVIDENCE. He's bitchslapped all over the intellectual world i shit you not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @sexyeur I have to question your use of the word "intellectual" here.

  • @sexyeur Depends on who or what you choose to deem "intellectual."

  • @sexyeur you accuse me of being stupid for what? And you 'shit me not' about what? About the fact that there are a lot of books written on the battle between science and religion? - meaning you didn't read or understand my comment.

    Whatever you're on, keep it away from me! Though, I might take you up on those titles by looking over them during summer as well.

  • @sexyeur

    And suddenly, the fanaticism shines through Always does in the end.

  • @ExaggeratedElegy you're forgiven, of me. God is another story, you fool. Suppose those in the twin towers of 9/11 knew destruction was coming, like Bush did. Wouldn't they be dragging idiots like you down the elevator shaft for your own good? Kicking your sorry ass down the stairwell because you were too stupid to know better to take a hint...a BLARING hint, like scriptures that say the Jesus history professes to is coming back, and not as your suffering servant.

    Perhaps you should die? tsk

  • @sexyeur

    I love those who with ome breath proclaim God to be perfect, divine and incomprehensible to human intelligence, yet with the next breath will demonstrate the utter insanity of telling you what said entity thinks, feels, desires, demands. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so moronically, knuckle draggingly dangerous. Also, the fact that your psrticularly crude and barbaric ideology relies upon threats and promises in order to sustain itself demonstrates quite clearly its utter lack...

  • @sexyeur

    ...of substance. A kind of "Emperor's New Clothes" situation to anyone with the least amount of integrity or critical faculty.

  • @ExaggeratedElegy do you mumble to yourself? You think, God isn't real and so hell not either while you deceive yourself and coddle yourself that you're in a "bigger" crowd. Well, soon enough, your life will end, and perhaps you will know then what even many 'Xstians' have been trying to tell you: Fear God Who has the power to destroy your soul! You were made for God's good pleasure, not your blind 'self-assurance'! GOD made ALL things, NOT 'science' even hell for the ungodly. REPENT!!!

  • @sexyeur

    Yay!

  • Not gonna lie Id be kinda scared to buy and read his book.....I guess I cant handle the truth

  • @tcoom76

    you're a retard

  • Dawkins has so many haters, but even so many years after the book comes out, not one will actually stand up and prove him wrong. You can bet they would if they could.

  • 2:35 is the start of part 2 if people watched the other part 1 that wasnt uploaded by the same guy. thumbs so people know

  • @321seb Thank you!! haha.

  • Good interviewer.

  • Statistics show that religiosity is actually very good for our later life well-being believe or not. Religion also has a lot of positive aspects, more positive in my opinion. Perhaps the negative aspects exist only when people twist scripture and use it out of context to excuse killing people, starting war and judging people right and left. Sadly, this corruption has happened in Christianity, Judaism and Islam

  • . If you were to live a life by the 10 commandments  it would benefit you and everyone around you.

  • @smile2thehighest true, but doesnt it worry you that 4 of those are just god saying "you will love only me, no one, else, worship me on the sabbath, dont make models of anyone else". that hints at a god that is a little jelous, no?

    however im just being light hearted, i do agree. commandments 5-10 are ways that you should live your life. although i like to think that people should know that without having to be told it by the bible first. :)

  • @321seb I actually don't see anything wrong about this type of jealousy. I hope your not thinking psycho-ex jealousy when you think of a jealous god. God won't strike you down with lightning if he sees you worshiping another God. The abrahamic religions focus on free will so God can't force you to follow him. Instead it is one who decides which path to follow and it's more of he doesn't want you to go astray from his word. If you go against God you go against yourself and others.

  • It's kind of idealistic to think that people are born with strong moral convictions. I don't want to discuss nature vs nurture but we pretty much learn right from wrong. I'm sure survival of the fittest was the moral motto to live by once don't you think so? I'm not saying we are born without a conscience but can we agree that growing up mom encourages you not to steal, not because you're going to end up(consequences) in jail but because it is morally wrong(selfish/unfair).

  • @smile2thehighest "survivor of the fittest" never meant that to all others be damned. We worked in communities before language existed. We would never have survived and thrived otherwise as a species. If we were to ignore the needs or safety of those in our tribes or families then we were ourselves doomed. We were always raised in high oxytocin environments where nature allowed as in we were close to people, contact was strong and empathy would be a nurtured quality, not decreed by a 'god'

  • @coleruamusic Well just took a class about the coming of religion and how it evolved. Basically if something stops having a purpose it seizes to exist. Apparently religion has a purpose. Secular studies have shown that it is good for your well-being etc anyway you can research that yourself. But anyway even though we did work in communities do you actually believe that nothing illegal like rape and stealing ever happened? If you're the toughest guy in the group, who could stop you?

  • @smile2thehighest

    Yes, religion is a very interesting subject in terms of human evolution and the need for early humans to use it to help explain what they couldn't. In fact you are right that religion can be beneficial to people (all religions the exact same) just like how a placebo works so long as you are getting it from someone you believe to have the power to do something like a doctor or a religious leader. There is actually a part of the brain that responds to religion and meditation

  • @smile2thehighest

    As for the rape and stealing, I'm not sure what I said to make you think I was suggesting that they didn't happen. But religion didn't stop them either so I'm not sure why you mention it. As for if someone would stop a bigger guy raping or killing? People have tried and succeeded/failed to stop people before as well as being chickens and ignoring it but again, it happens where there is and isn't religion.

  • @coleruamusic Simply because religion helps people, you think it is true. However, comfort does not provide evidence that any of its claims are true.

  • @PhysicalsimForever

    Religion also causes a lot of problems and conflicts and discrimination.

    All those people could also be helped without religion.

  • @GoldenCrusader93 start helping then.

  • @jonathan305wilson

    i already do

  • @PhysicalsimForever people are just retarded don't even bother trying to reason with them

  • I'm not saying that people are born without a consious but we definitly learn most of what we now believe to be moral. Growing up I'm sure mom told you not to steal not only because there were consequences (jail-time) but because it was wrong (selfish/unfair). I'm sure once upon a time when our species was new survival of the fittest was the motto of consciensness. Morals come from religion (incl. non Abrohamic).Thankfully we have morals. I still don't think any less of the 10 commandments.

  • @smile2thehighest lol morals don't come from religion, it's the opposite, religions got their morals from the surrounding moral trends at the time. Why do you think the ten commandments don't speak of slavery? And even advocates it later in the bible. Why do you think it is against gays? Morals come in part from genetic dispositions of sympathy, and alot from discussion and reasoning between people. AFTER religion comes and claims as though it always thought like current moral trends

  • @2CSST2 I had to respond. Morals may originate from man. Since man is a practitioner of religion you cannot separate the one from the other. Slavery, gay-friendliness all that jazz you're talking about is created by man and thus is eradicated by man the same way. As for your comments on slavery, you really can't accuse Jews of advocating slavery, they suffered it under Egyptian rule long before the 10 commandments. Maybe you should touch up on your Hebrew Bible knowledge.

  • @smile2thehighest yes he will. every commandment broken = death.

    and he frequently intervenes with free will! in the tale of moses after a few plagues the pharoah wants to let the jews be free, god "hardens the pharoahs heart" so he can continue with the murderous plagues to show his power.

    God does force you to follow him:

    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. Exodus 22:19

    im not bashing you man :) if it works for ya then hey, but it's all there in the bible

  • It does not equal death.Remember thou shall not kill.These laws are for men not God.God intervened to set them free 4m the Pharoah.But the pharoah chose to let His people go,he didn't have to,he had 2conquer his own pride.Dying is not doom, living a selfish/angry life is.Things sink by their own weight.Eventually someone who drinks will end up in the hospital.Cause&Effect.There are many paths, we choose which pass we want to follow.We doom ourselves.Even in the face of death, the choice is yours

  • @smile2thehighest The ten commandments aren't the only rules only bible. Don't be so selective

  • @kuhj278 You are right. Love God above all things and others as you love yourself. I think that's an actual summary of all the rules. I think the bible basically tells everyone to be unselfish, so I can see how that conflicts with individualism. I think individualism is something that both athiest and christians have trouble reconciling their lives with.

  • @smile2thehighest Yeah I don't think you've read the entire bible. It says you should kill homosexuals it condones rape, murder, pedophelia, racism and apartheid. Just ask me about any one of those and I'll find the part for you

  • Thebible is complicated because we are dealing with a book that is historical,contains songs,stories(that didn't happen but have a good moral message)so it's easy to get things out of context if you are not a historical theologian.The bible is seriously like aGIANTsoap opera.People kill,rape,cheat, love,help, betray etc So just because it's in the bible doesn'tmean that you should make the same mistakes they did.On the contrary, learn from them.It is precedent to move forward.Jesus loves all ppl

  • @smile2thehighest It's very doubtful that Jesus even existed because the bible is the only historical source where we hear about him. And that goes for most ''Historical'' events in the bible that they cannot be found in any other historical records wich really doesn't make it a history book. And the stories that are in in that is supposed to teach morals and stuff don't always do that just look at the book of judges and the views that they have on women aswell as leviticus. Get a clue

  • Dawkins spoke about moral truths..I'm sure they come from religion. He didn't make them up himself. If Dawkins believes in moral truths than he just wants people to believe HIS faith (atheism) of what is good and evil. No so much about evidence. The evidence of religion is that scientifically (biologically) it is beneficial for you. Of course, only a religion of hope, love, forgiveness and peace. Keep ya out of trouble : )

  • @smile2thehighest Actually, he said that he doubts that there is such a thing as a moral truth. But anyway, I think it's reasonable to assert that morality was here long before religion, specifically YOUR religion. So it's a bit cheap saying that Christianity "invented" it. I can assure you that's not where my morality comes from. May I ask whether you think we are above the other animals? And as such we can treat them as we please?

  • I didn't say which religion invented morality Morality is personal.Dawkins understands that morality is very subjective and if that is the case the whole world is religious in its own way because everyone lives by a creed, things that they believe are right and wrong.However he did state that morals did exist. Sounds a bit Marixist no, he is too a religious fanatic.Yes I think we are,we have language and critical thinking skills and they don't.But no you can't treat them as you please, what?

  • @LockardKevin than it has to validate it, and so I think agnosticism is infinitely more defensible because you can't be *wrong*.

  • @LockardKevin but I never claimed those things were true or that I believed in them, simply that I can't claim to know whether or not they are true. Obviously evolution overrules creationism, but that doesn't prove religions invalid necessarily. I don't think most religions that have survived this long were simply created without any reason. Agnostics (of the non-theistic/atheistic variety) simply don't know, and I don't think science has done any better to invalidate religion (- Creationism) t

  • @taffysaur call it what you will, I believe it is a more intellectually sound position than taking either side in any absolute way.

  • @sebastianbach I'm (non atheistic and non theistic) agnostic by the way.

  • @18Iamtheguy fence sitting.

  • @sebastionbach yes in regard to creationism vs. Evolution he wins, but *most* religious people I know don't consider god and evolution mutually exclusive (only stupid people still believe things like Genesis verbatim lol). I went to a religious school when I was younger and they taught evolution in the Biology class. But yes evolution overrules creationism scientifically.

  • Dawkins is very smart and incredibly articulate (although he is somewhat arrogant), but I don't agree with him 100%. I think Atheism has many of the same pitfalls that religion does (ie it can no more be proven by fact), I think agnosticism is really a more logical as it doesn't claim to know anything that can't be factually proven or disproven (like the existence of a god).

  • @18Iamtheguy I think Dawkins seeks to disprove religion by disproving the claims of religion regarding creation and evolution. In this respect he does back up his beliefs with science and sustains his position in that way. I would say in this respect he does prov