@ChristianMark1986 Because a Creationist doesnt understand logical and reasonable debate. Read any of Dawkins books and you will see how he has been duped many times and continually sets out his reasons not to debate such maligned individuals.
@markdcp I'm sure he would try his hardest to have you believe that. He wants you to believe that he wouldnt do it because it would always end in the trump card of faith. but the truth is that any top creation scientist would mop the floor with him in an arena of logic and reason.
Thought the same, though he wasnt indoctrinated to be Christian as a kid and had probably to face his fear of death and wish for an all-father a bit later in his life.
I could never take anyone seriously who says "Back in the 1960's....everybody was a Marxist and I followed that intellectual fashion and it just seemed entirely reasonable to adopt an atheist approach." What, he didn't think, reason or have any view of his own ? He became a Marxist and an atheist because it was fashionable? Most people didn't didn't become Marxist (maybe some loony students ) and most didn't become atheist because political beliefs made it 'entirely reasonable'.
@ohyeshim2 Yeah! And Zeus bless McGrath. And Osiris. And Ra. And Apollo. And Aries. And Mars. And Quetzalcoatl. And Tawaret. And Ganesh. And Vishnu. And Dionysus. And Athena. And Venus. And all the other made up gods from history.
@rossapher24 Finally. Cordial and respectable discourse that rises above the vial and vitriol of youtube atheistic/theistic demonization and condescension of each other!
Adulters should be stoned to death, disobedient children should be stoned to death, a woman should never speak against a man, a woman should always serve a man and should never raise her voice in public, a disobedient woman can be beaten with a stick, it is ok to have slaves and beat a slave,- he still calls it a rational religion.
@Starnebula100 Where is this in Christianity? Jesus stopped the Adulteress from being stoned, taught that anyone who hurt a child would be in terrible danger before God, used Women as his first Evangelists, and taught and lived total non-violence.
@decaffinatedoysters "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil...if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." The verses you quote were obviously ideas of what God was like that Jesus came to challenge...
@decaffinatedoysters There is no getting around that Jesus intended to directly challenge many of the traditional views of God, including the violence supported in the texts you quote. I don't see how one can deny that Jesus taught, lived, and died non-violently, as did many of his disciples. There is no doubt that the early church took these teachings very seriously too. Divorce, anger, lust...Jesus radically subverted the accepted views of his day on a lot of things.
yeah thats true of course, but I just don't see how people can just pick and choose parts of the bible and ignore the old testament yet still all themselves christians. just seems odd to me, no disrespect
17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
"Richard Dawkins has finally found his match..." I don't think you understand, he still bases his life on a fairy tales, why are we still listening to him!?
@Starnebula100 Now where does he say that? And even if he does say his the best way among the many other ways to explain faith, how in the world is that contradictory? He can't say which way he thinks is the optimal way of explaining reality?
@breenhill How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
Richard Dawkins is the most silently angry person I've ever seen, lol. He's always so frustrated with people, but manages to refrain from choking them with his bare hands as his fluttering eye lids would lead me to believe is his internal desire.
There's something about the way he tilts his head as he talks that makes him seem like a douche. I have a tough choice now - watch his head, or scroll down and watch the pointless arguments...
@CoryTheRaven I took your advice, and though I read in Alisters writings that he sees more than two options, we could break down christian views into many sub views, but ultimately just as we question the existence of God or not, the earth is either less than 6000 years old, according some or many theists, or greater than several billion years old according to sciientists, I'm curious what proportion of Theists fall into each of these two camps? What about you?
@axolotl5 First, I'm absolutely floored that you actually took my advice! I'm far more accustomed to having my recommendation to research met with elaborate and argumentative reasons not to!
Now, the problem in your question is that it's actually two separate questions, one on whether the Christian God exists and a separate one on how old the universe is. If you try to combine them, say with God or not on the X-axis and the age of the unvierse on the Y, there are at least 4 possible answers..
@axolotl5 #1) That the Christian God exists and the universe is only 6000 years old (ie: the Genesis Creation stories are both literal fact)
#2) That the Christian God exists and the universe is several billion years old (ie: the Genesis Creation stories are not literal fact)
#3) That the Christian God does not exist but scientists are still wrong about the age of the universe anyways (it's WEIRD, but I've met atheist Creationists)
@axolotl5 I'm sure there are any number of studies you could look at to figure out a rough number of how many Christians adhere to YE Creationism, OE Creationism, theistic evolution, etc. It also isn't particularly hard to dig up the formal doctrinal documentation of various denominations regarding human origins. As for myself, I am a theistic evolutionist: let the Bible say what it was intended to say, let scientific questions be answered by science, let theology be informed by all disciplines
@axolotl5 I have spent time among mainline Protestants, evangelical and charismatic Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox -- only certain segments within the evangelical and charismatic worlds have any issue with evolution or the age of the earth: those among Catholics and Orthodox that I've met who have any issue with modern scientific findings have been, exclusively, ex-evangelicals. Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainliners are all as alienated by this feature as you are.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Holy shit!! Which Richard Dawkins is this?! What did they do with the real one who blusters and vomits up ad hominems all over people who believe different things than him?!
@CoryTheRaven Well not whitwashing ones position usually hurts the feelings of folks who do not support a similar thought. Especially when the opposing position can be backed by data.
@wowamonn That's the fun thing about being honest: it exposes what is really in your heart, what your actual motivations are. Is it a genuine difference of opinion that can be debated in good faith, or is it really just gratuitous assholery? In Dawkins' case, the impression is that he is being dishonest when he is being civil. It has nothing to do with "whitewashing" or being "backed by data" or hurting people's feelings and everything to do with being an asshole.
@CoryTheRaven " That's the fun thing about being honest: it exposes what is really in your heart, what your actual motivations are "
And what do you think motivates Dr. Dawkins? Do you get upset when he calls your god a bully? I would too if I believed your god existed. However I recommend you stop watching interviews and debates by Dawkins if you dont like what he has to say about your god.
@wowamonn I think Dawkins is motivated by a rather prosaic contempt for people whose beliefs differ from his own. He thinks he's right and that if everyone thought as he did, all the world's problems would be solved. He's no different from any other bigot.
@CoryTheRaven " I think Dawkins is motivated by a rather prosaic contempt for people whose beliefs differ from his own. He thinks he's right and that if everyone thought as he did, all the world's problems would be solved. He's no different from any other bigot. "
You are doing the same thing that you accuse Dawkins or doing.
@wowamonn M'nope. I have never made wholesale condemnations of views that differ from my own, or accused parents with views different from my own abusing their children, or advocated for the political suppression of people whose views differ from my own. It would philosophically difficult for me to accomplish, given that I'm a Lutheran with a book of Rumi's poetry, a string of emi boards, a rosary in my pocket, a braid of sweetgrass and a job teaching science.
@CoryTheRaven Can you think of any holy book where our modern understanding of science has ever been presented accurately?. You force connect your belief for your god with science where none exists. Then you claim compatiblity. Sorry, wanting to live in heaven is not strong enough evidence for this so-called compitablity.
@wowamonn I am walking evidence of the compatibility by virtue of being a religious person with a grad degree in theology as well as a professional science educator with an undergrad background in geology (not to mention the volunteer work I do with numerous local science origanizations). You may disagree with the particulars of my beliefs, but you cannot factually say that I have been unable to reconcile my faith and my love of science.
@CoryTheRaven You confuse faith with the testablity of science. They are not compatibly. I bet you believe in the after life.That you will get resurrected to be with your god in his heaven that he created specially for you. I bet you think that humans are special and that the laws of the natural world, such as death, do not affect us as they do MERE animals. That assumation is based on faith not scientific observation.
@wowamonn I'm not confusing anything. I know the category faith falls into and I know the category science falls into. Nor did I make any argument of the kind you're ascribing to me. All I said is that there are religious scientists and pro-science doctrines in mainline religious sects. Therefore, from a strictly factual, non-theoretical perspective, science and religion are compatible. You're the one trying to confuse things.
@CoryTheRaven I think this ' compatiblity ' is an illusion that is conjured by the religous who undertsand the nature of science but who want to still adhere to thier forfathers religous traditions. Then they try to mesh the two together and try to apply the mechanisms of science to thier personal belief in gods. What I do believe is that for a TIME the relgious try to work both but in the end they have to give up one. In most cases for the humble person its usually the belief for a god.
@wowamonn I don't get upset that he has a difference of opinion from me. What I find contemptible about him is the fact that he knowlingly lies about people who have a difference of opinion from him. By now he has no excuse for making strawman arguments, false dilemmas, hasty generalizations, argumentum ad Hitlerum and so on. But he still does it, because that is his bread and butter. He's an idealogue and an asshole.
But I watch debates with him because I enjoy watching him put in his place.
@wowamonn Any time he's said that science and religion are incompatible is an example of a bald-faced factual lie. He might think that the cohesion of them is philosophically objectionable, but there are plenty of practicing scientists and pro-science doctrines of mainstream sects that reconcile them in practice. To say, as he does in Enemies of Reason, that "faith" and "reason" are the only ways of looking at the world and they are incompatible, he isdeliberately engaged in thought-control...
Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Ian Barbour, Farouk El-Baz, Freeman Dyson, Ahmed H. Zewail, Ken Miller, Bob Bakker, Denis Alexander, Jennifer Wiseman, etc., etc. would probably disagree with you, strenuously.
"Name one pro-science doctrine that can be found in a holy book. That is practiced by a scientist."
@CoryTheRaven Listing folks who are scientists and still practice thier religon do not to negate the fact that thier religous views are correct and that a god exists my friend. For example Collins he became a christian because it bothered him that thier was so much suffering in the world. I dont think it occured to him that suffering is shared by all creatures on our planet. By the way I have read books by Francis collins and Ken Miller ETC. I used Millers text in Biology.
@wowamonn The mere EXISTENCE of theistic scientists disproves the false dilemma that one must choose between the incompatible poles of science and religion. If science and religion were incompatible in FACT, then none of these people could sustain being both. They do. Ergo, the hypothesis that science and religion are incompatible is factually incorrect.
@CoryTheRaven " The mere EXISTENCE of theistic scientists disproves the false dilemma that one must choose between the incompatible poles of science and religion"
You just commited a logical fallacy. You frist have to establish that theistic beliefs ARE based on reasonable observational evidence and THAT is something that is impossible to do.
@wowamonn I did nothing of the sort. I said that science and religion are compatible, not that they are the same.
Let's use another example. I say that it is possible to be a scientist and an artist. You obviously disagree because I have yet to establish that art is based on reasonable observational evidence. Furthermore, it would be impossible to establish this fact because THAT IS NOT WHAT ART IS ABOUT.
@CoryTheRavenarticle (1) ........159 " Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, Cont
@CoryTheRaven (2) " can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are "
Umm still waiting for a scientific doctine that has been presented in the bible. Theory of Evolution, Gravity Etc.
@wowamonn "Umm still waiting for a scientific doctine that has been presented in the bible. Theory of Evolution, Gravity Etc."
I never argued that an accurate picture of a scientific discovery has ever been presented in a holy book. What I said is that there are pro-science doctrines of mainline religious sects. I just cited one to you. If you do not think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church guides Catholic doctrine and practice, then you are way out to lunch.
@CoryTheRaven " . I just cited one to you. If you do not think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church guides Catholic doctrine and practice, then you are way out to lunch. "
I grew up a Catholic mate made first communion and confession. Trust me I know all about the ' compitablity " that is presented by the Church and science. Then began attending a fundemetalist church for 15 years until I rejected the belief in a god 3 years ago. Been there done that.
@wowamonn So you were a Catholic as a child, then did time as a fundamentalist (who are reknowned for their intellectualism) as a teenager/young adult, and now you're an angry atheist. And you have the audacity to question OTHER people's motivations?! Wow, take the log out from thine own eye there buddy.
@CoryTheRaven Sorry, mate but I became an Athiest because I realized that there was actually no evidence for your god. I think you do to. but you would never admit it. That is why you get so pissed at Dawkins who say to the religous that god is a figment of a humans imagination.
@wowamonn The trouble with trying to second-guess motivations is that it might make YOU feel very good about yourself but people are generally pretty knowledgeable about THEIR OWN beliefs. All you're doing is telling yourself "yeah, deep down these people think exactly the same way I do, they're just not as honest and fearless as me to admit it." It's self-serving and does nothing to address the actual argument that is being stated. It is a very fundamentalist Christian thing to do though.
@CoryTheRaven Of course you second guess your beliefs I dont know of any christians who do not. Its amazing that you admit that your god, who created the Universe, that is based on Mathematics and Physics had nothing to say on the matter but gave instructions on when you can sleep with your wife, for how long, Etc. And none of this nonsense throughs up a red flag in your mind that maybe this literture may not be inspired after all?
@wowamonn THere is a distinct difference between the constant learning and growth engaged in by religious people and you trying to second-guess them with assertions that they REALLY think the same way you do.
Again, there is no reason to expect God to impart detailed knowledge of particle physics to bronze-age humanity. The lack of a a Biblical book on quantum mechanics is utterly irrelevant to me. It also lacks books on aesthetic theory and how to fix a TV. So what?
@CoryTheRaven I knew you would you use the ' god did not inspire scientific knowledge in the bible because humans were to stupid to understand scientific explinations argument, ' What an assinine excuse for the ignorance of the bible.
@wowamonn LoL. I also said that it did not include aesthetic theory or instructions on TV repair. The Bible is a collection of books oriented towards a specific purpose, which is to chroncile the experience of the Jewish and later Christian people with God. It is not about anything extraneous to that. To suggest otherwise is to impose your own idea of what the Bible OUGHT to be instead of assessing the Bible on what it was MEANT to be.
@CoryTheRaven " The Bible is a collection of books oriented towards a specific purpose, which is to chroncile the experience of the Jewish and later Christian people with God "
This should have read ....." Jewish and later Christian people with ONE of thier Gods "
@wowamonn There is latent material in Scripture for the Hebrews' henotheistic phase, but it is pretty difficult not to notice that the major trend of the Bible is monotheistic.
@CoryTheRaven " There is latent material in Scripture for the Hebrews' henotheistic phase, but it is pretty difficult not to notice that the major trend of the Bible is monotheistic. "
You dont know much of how your bible was written and selected to be canon do you?
@CoryTheRaven " . To suggest otherwise is to impose your own idea of what the Bible OUGHT to be instead of assessing the Bible on what it was MEANT to be. "
Whats funny is that the modern religus thinkers do the same.
@wowamonn Yes, some do. Creationists, for example. You would probably know more about that than me. You did time in three religions - Catholicism, Fundamentalism and Atheism - that impose themselves on the Bible.
@wowamonn If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... For some atheists, the tolerable ones, religion is a non-issue. they live their lives like it doesn't matter, because to them it doesn't. They don't go around harranguing people who believe in things they don't. For other atheists, religion is very much an issue. They are true believers in the philosophy of atheism, and feel compelled to go around preaching it at every opportunity. They - you - behave exactly like any fundamentalist.
@CoryTheRaven No matter how much you dislike the fact that atheists often mock the religious, that does not make atheism a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion.
@axolotl5 As per William James, "religion" is however a person orients themselves to whatever it is that they believe to be the ultimate truth of reality. The content of those beliefs is not so significant, from a psychological and sociological perspective, as the behaviours. If you run around being rigidly intolerant of beliefs that differ from your own, certain that yours are The Truth[tm] and the world's problems would be solved by conversion to them, how is that not fundamentalism?
@CoryTheRaven " are true believers in the philosophy of atheism, and feel compelled to go around preaching it at every opportunity. They - you - behave exactly like any fundamentalist."
@CoryTheRaven Well guess what mate, I like you, unfortunatly you let the belief of your forfathers blind the logical thinking that creep up in your mind every now and then that question the existance for your god. Why dont you just try being an Aheist for a couple of months and apply Darwinian thinking to everyday activites and you will see a diffrence on how you approach life. Relgious beliefs are narrow minded in its world view and do not leave room for reasonble thinking.
@wowamonn Again, you are assuming a great deal about how I think. Since I was never a Catholic nor a Fundamentalist, I think it's pretty safe to assume that my experience is quite different from your own and that I think in quite different ways from you. How about addressing what I say instead of trying to second-guess my motives and imposing your drama on me? Like, okay dude, you have issues about being a Fundie for 15 years. I get it. No need to take it out on every Christian you meet.
@CoryTheRaven " I never argued that an accurate picture of a scientific discovery has ever been presented in a holy book "
Then why believe in a book that was written by humans whose beliefs were based on ignorance and superstition? Who claimed that super beings spoke to them in the desert. You accept these stories based on what?
@wowamonn Why would I look for scientific data in a collection of books written by pre-scientific people? The assertion that all ancient literature is bunk simply because it is ancient is anti-intellectual, arrogant, baseless nonsense that makes we weep more for the illiteracy of the modern age than for any offense to my specific beliefs.
@CoryTheRaven " The assertion that all ancient literature is bunk simply because it is ancient is anti-intellectual, arrogant, baseless nonsense that makes we weep more for the illiteracy of the modern age than for any offense to my specific beliefs. "
Do you feel the same about the Gitas of the Hindu faith? .They contain no scientific information. They were written by supersitious pre-scientific people yet you dont think of them as inspired, why?
@wowamonn The Baghavad Gita I disagree with because it is essentially a giant defense of uncritical social hierarchy. In the terminology of Neitszche, it is an example of "master morality". As such, it runs directly counter to what I believe to be true via the example of Jesus and subsequent conviction of human equality. In short, I believe them wrong because they contradict what I believe to be true.
@CoryTheRaven " As such, it runs directly counter to what I believe to be true via the example of Jesus and subsequent conviction of human equality. In short, I believe them wrong because they contradict what I believe to be true "
Isnt it strange that what you believe to be true was also the faith you grew up in? What a coincidence.
First of all, I have no reason to believe that I am so unlucky that it is impossible for me to have been born into the right religion. There is no reason to preference conversion as an instrument of truth.
Secondly, you're assuming that I haven't questioned my beliefs and found them generally preferable to alternatives. But of course you would: apparently every time you had a question, you changed beliefs.
@CoryTheRaven " THere is a distinct difference between the constant learning and growth engaged in by religious people and you trying to second-guess them with assertions that they REALLY think the same way you do"
And exactly what is this learning and growth? To plug in your god into scientific unknowns? How far will the religous back-pedal when science cotinues to chip away at religous expilnations for the workings of the Universe.
@wowamonn "To plug in your god into scientific unknowns?"
Nope, and I don't know of any theologians who subscribe to a God of the Gaps model. Atheists keep saying that we do, but that seems like your classic second-guessing our motives instead of actually paying attention to what we say.
By learning and growth, I meant the constant exercise of deepening my understanding of both my religious tradition and the traditions of others through constant study.
@CoryTheRaven " By learning and growth, I meant the constant exercise of deepening my understanding of both my religious tradition and the traditions of others through constant study "
Well at least you reconize the fact that your religous beliefs is based on tradition and not ' truth '
@CoryTheRaven " Nope, and I don't know of any theologians who subscribe to a God of the Gaps model. Atheists keep saying that we do, but that seems like your classic second-guessing our motives instead of actually paying attention to what we say. "
The reason the religous is ignored is that the reliogus, insist that thier god is the creator of the Universe and science has demonstrated that a god had nothing to do with natural processes.
@wowamonn No, the reason they are ignored when they describe their beliefs and expected to sit there while atheists tell them what their beliefs "really" are is that this brand of atheist are so hateful that they feel under no obligation to be respectful.
For example, our entire conversation has been you going "YOU THINK THIS, POOHEAD!" and me replying "No, this is what I believe" over and over and over again. You have yet to figure out how to listen rather than tell people what they think.
@wowamonn Strawman arguments, hasty generalizations and association fallacy, false dilemmas, red herrings, bad faith arguments, argumentum ad absurdum, appeal to ridicule, reductio ad Hitlerum, genetic fallacy, quoting out of context and cherry picking, moving the goalposts, thought terminating cliches, appeal to motive, and the ever popular ad hominem attack. Watching a Dawkins video or reading a Dawkins article is like witnessing a living, breathing encyclopedia of logical fallacies.
@CoryTheRaven I personally think you dont like Dawkins because he exposes the man made institution that is religon and the existance for gods has never been proven. Dawkins arguments lay waste to the nonsense that is presented by the aplogists such as WLC, Strobel, White Etc..
@wowamonn Wow, you second-guess my motives! Shocking I tell you! Truly shocking!
Personally I think that you think that I don't like Dawkins because he exposes the man made institution that is religion because I'm exposing the man made institution that is Dawkins.
In all years of reading and listening to debates on the subject, this is the most rational and amiable discussion I've heard. For once, and Athiest and a Thiest are listening to each other and reasoning, not bashing. I'm something of a diest; I've read Dawkin's The God Delusion and recommend it. I have yet to read anything of McGrath.
In all years of reading and listening to debates on the subject, this is the most rational and amiable discussion I've heard. For once, and Athiest and a Thiest are listening to each other and reasoning, not bashing. I'm something of a diest; I've read Dawkin's The God Delusion and recommend it. I have yet to read anything of McGrath.
This guys make me smile. I'm a christian and I just love seeing people who have two different beliefs on how humans were formed and act it out not like 8 year old's fighting for the last cookie or in this case who is smarter than the other! I love watching this. Because it's proof even a topic witch is completely disregarded in society can be acted out in such a formal manner. Not with people going like screw you you stupid Christian! Or how can you athiests come up with this BS?!
@CartesianTheist I heard him say the things I mentioned, that makes me 100% qualified to discuss those things. Sorry if you can't follow the written word. I am angry because your stupidity frustrates me.
@CartesianTheist Im not reviewing his book you fucking retard, I am commenting on things he has SAID in videos I have watched. You sound like an idiot, who can't comprehend his opinions are expressed out of his MOUTH as well as in his books. Maybe you should go deeper than the "cover" of my comments.
I've seen McGrath being interviewed on religious programmes, on Revelation TV for example. When he is in a dogma friendly environment, and unchallenged by rational dissent, his views are a lot more unreasonable, and his "strawman" interpretations of people like Dawkins and Hitchens are disgraceful.
@CartesianTheist I have not read his books, but I have watched many debates he took part in. I have heard out of his mouth, no fallacy comitted. He talks of his atheism and laughing off christian doctrines as he hears them. Later he (I guess receives a blow to the head) and sees the "logic" and "beauty" of christianity and it makes the most sense to him. However if he was raised in a muslim country he would have been laughing off Islam till it made sense to him. He should be a deist.
@CartesianTheist We know his reasons for being a christian, we want him to see one of them. If you ask him why he is a christian he will fake an answer with "faith". He keeps saying it makes the most sense to him. However it makes sense to him, because he was raised among christians. Not because he has any evidence or logic for it.
We have all the resources to make the world a better place for everyone but we are too stupid and ignorant so we invoke the existence of a "GOD" so we don't have to be responsible for anything. People who cannot think critically need god the rest of us don't.
@CartesianTheist A question is not a fallacy. Its an attempt to understand where he is coming from. After all he claims to have a rational basis to his christianity so he has evidence of god, and that it is a christian god.
@CartesianTheist No need to be sorry. An atheist believes NO gods exist, whichever country or background they originate in. So a Saudian Arabian atheist is the same as the German atheist. It has nothing to do with "genetics" and everything to do with your parent's beliefs and hence your upbringing.
@CartesianTheist No need to be sorry. An atheist believes NO gods exist, whichever country or background they originate in. So a Saudian Arabian atheist is the same as the German atheist. It has nothing to do with "genetics" and everything to do with your parent's beliefs and hence your upbringing.
So lets see...he grows up in Ireland, is an "atheist" thends up with the judeo-christian "god". Why didn't he become a hindu, sikh or muslim I wonder?
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
I love how civilized and proper they are with one another, all the while getting their jabs in with a sweet smile on their faces. So very, very British. Cup of tea?
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
At Dawkin's Anti-Christ question at 2:18, I would have added: because of the nature of atheism, the rage, defiance, and vitriol being dished out to Christians on YouTube are much worse than Dawkin's hand-picked debates. I've seen atheists threaten to kill theists over a fight. The other problem resides in the fact that many atheists are frustrated homosexuals and they love evolution to prove their sex orientation is the result of evolution... You argue against that? Watch your back.
Thank you so much for showing us that people on two sides of an issue can actually have a reasonable conversation and intellectual dialogue without insults or tempers. Political "debates" are no more than a battle of insults and expensive suits, C v E "debates" are just as bad. This debate is a reasonable conversation where it seems that each member actually cares about influencing each other, not just trying to make the other look stupid.
@ThanksDoctorThoctor And that's what we call an individual determination to the puzzle of how everything that exists came into existence. The question is, will you start WWIII with the people who decide any other conclusion?
I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but McGrath could have easily asked Hitchens how he felt having the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung Ill, and Castro among others in his camp? Sure there are some kooky Christians who may want to do violence in the name of Christianity and that is, no doubt, unfortunate. But a lot less unfortunate than the 100,000,000's killed in the name of Atheism in just one century. (For the record, I do NOT group Mr. Hitchens with these, only making a point)
communism is very different in comparing atheism,atheism is no belief in god , communism as portrayed by the the soviets,Cubans chinese etc...is an example as the state being their god. the 100 million killed were not a direct result of atheism....the crusades which caused millions of civilian deaths and the inquisitions for example was a direct result of Christianity .
@Paletero336 Well I'm afraid that's not entirely true. The Crusades spanned 100's of years during which, not even one million people lived in the holy land. And the Spanish Inquistion lasted approx. 350 yrs. Resulting in about 2000 deaths. (6/yr) Sure thats 2000 to many but Communism in the 20th century was all about creating a new man. (Marx) Belief in God was the biggest threat to this new idea. So Communists absolutely killed in the name of atheism.
they killed in the name of their politics beliefs..atheism wasn't the primary reason...most atheist don't hold communist beliefs because like a dogmatic religion hinders free thought and creativity.
alguien que traduzca esto por favor!
briel89 1 day ago
Comment removed
auggie08relpol 3 days ago
too bad dawkins doesn't have the balls to debate a Young Earth Creationist.
ChristianMark1986 2 weeks ago
@ChristianMark1986 Because a Creationist doesnt understand logical and reasonable debate. Read any of Dawkins books and you will see how he has been duped many times and continually sets out his reasons not to debate such maligned individuals.
markdcp 2 weeks ago
@markdcp I'm sure he would try his hardest to have you believe that. He wants you to believe that he wouldnt do it because it would always end in the trump card of faith. but the truth is that any top creation scientist would mop the floor with him in an arena of logic and reason.
ChristianMark1986 2 weeks ago
@ChristianMark1986 Because he'd win? Because he's lose? Because it would be funny?
Chrisbrockle1 3 days ago
Is the cameraman on crack? Stand still!
Gouldsonuk 3 weeks ago
Do they stand the whole time?....what powerful calfs
JJvideoman 1 month ago 2
from an atheist to a christian always makes me wonder when along the way the bump took place to their head?
JESUStheATHEIST1 1 month ago
@JESUStheATHEIST1
Thought the same, though he wasnt indoctrinated to be Christian as a kid and had probably to face his fear of death and wish for an all-father a bit later in his life.
Just my theory.
shurednichso 1 month ago
@JESUStheATHEIST1 A lot of people convert because they find religious teachings appealing.
polishguy994 1 week ago
I like it that both parties ain't screaming at each other like how Billy O'reilly is acting
Athrun000 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 weeks ago
@Athrun000 John Lennon vs Bill O'Reilly
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 weeks ago
Dawkins vs McGrath. SHIT JUST GOT REAL!
bboyCrazyLegs 1 month ago 14
@bboyCrazyLegs literall lols thankyou
JJvideoman 1 month ago
I could never take anyone seriously who says "Back in the 1960's....everybody was a Marxist and I followed that intellectual fashion and it just seemed entirely reasonable to adopt an atheist approach." What, he didn't think, reason or have any view of his own ? He became a Marxist and an atheist because it was fashionable? Most people didn't didn't become Marxist (maybe some loony students ) and most didn't become atheist because political beliefs made it 'entirely reasonable'.
mucalinda 1 month ago
God bless McGrath.
ohyeshim2 2 months ago
@ohyeshim2
Indeed!!
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@ohyeshim2 ? really? ugh. he said Christianity is rational hahah! the person believing may be yes, but the foundation is not.
remix696 2 months ago in playlist Religion
@ohyeshim2 Amen brother. Not.
apfelipod 2 months ago
@ohyeshim2 Yeah! And Zeus bless McGrath. And Osiris. And Ra. And Apollo. And Aries. And Mars. And Quetzalcoatl. And Tawaret. And Ganesh. And Vishnu. And Dionysus. And Athena. And Venus. And all the other made up gods from history.
BarryDong 1 month ago
Amazing camera work!
webbum 2 months ago
Proper dialog, wouldn't have expected that!
apfelipod 2 months ago
Comment removed
decaffinatedoysters 2 months ago
Insert your "science" inside your assholes you genius atheists!
chris241289 2 months ago
Love the Dawk Meister Gee
tool2342 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins & Alister McGrath
two very intelligent men. I'm an atheist and i can accept McGrath's way of thinking.
rossapher24 2 months ago 15
@rossapher24 Finally. Cordial and respectable discourse that rises above the vial and vitriol of youtube atheistic/theistic demonization and condescension of each other!
auggie08relpol 3 days ago
Adulters should be stoned to death, disobedient children should be stoned to death, a woman should never speak against a man, a woman should always serve a man and should never raise her voice in public, a disobedient woman can be beaten with a stick, it is ok to have slaves and beat a slave,- he still calls it a rational religion.
Starnebula100 2 months ago
@Starnebula100 Where is this in Christianity? Jesus stopped the Adulteress from being stoned, taught that anyone who hurt a child would be in terrible danger before God, used Women as his first Evangelists, and taught and lived total non-violence.
Lahi53 2 months ago
@Lahi53
deuteronomy 3, 1 chronicles 21, judges 21, exodus 21, psalms 137, etc...
decaffinatedoysters 2 months ago
@decaffinatedoysters "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil...if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." The verses you quote were obviously ideas of what God was like that Jesus came to challenge...
Lahi53 2 months ago
@decaffinatedoysters There is no getting around that Jesus intended to directly challenge many of the traditional views of God, including the violence supported in the texts you quote. I don't see how one can deny that Jesus taught, lived, and died non-violently, as did many of his disciples. There is no doubt that the early church took these teachings very seriously too. Divorce, anger, lust...Jesus radically subverted the accepted views of his day on a lot of things.
Lahi53 2 months ago
@Lahi53
yeah thats true of course, but I just don't see how people can just pick and choose parts of the bible and ignore the old testament yet still all themselves christians. just seems odd to me, no disrespect
decaffinatedoysters 2 months ago
@decaffinatedoysters None taken, sorry I think my typing comes across more argumentative than I realize sometimes.
Lahi53 2 months ago
@Lahi53
Please read Mark 5:17-18
17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
"Richard Dawkins has finally found his match..." I don't think you understand, he still bases his life on a fairy tales, why are we still listening to him!?
mojoswoptopz 3 months ago
@mojoswoptopz Because he doesn't base his life on fairy tales.
breenhill 3 months ago
@breenhill There are many possible ways of explaining faith he says- but he preaches his is the only best way. How contradictory!
Starnebula100 2 months ago
@Starnebula100 Now where does he say that? And even if he does say his the best way among the many other ways to explain faith, how in the world is that contradictory? He can't say which way he thinks is the optimal way of explaining reality?
breenhill 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breenhill How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins is the most silently angry person I've ever seen, lol. He's always so frustrated with people, but manages to refrain from choking them with his bare hands as his fluttering eye lids would lead me to believe is his internal desire.
PocketDrummer 3 months ago
There's something about the way he tilts his head as he talks that makes him seem like a douche. I have a tough choice now - watch his head, or scroll down and watch the pointless arguments...
ChrisMP1 3 months ago
"...a rational faith"
lolwut
ultimateZigzag 3 months ago
Thank God Dorkins is going straight to Hell. If he ever went to Heaven he would make it Hell for everyone else.
tigranvartanovitch 3 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch we are not here to condemn anyone mate
devasahayam 3 months ago
Why is McGrath's head forever tilted to the side? It makes me dizzy
despondentblue 4 months ago 2
@despondentblue dawkins mouth seems to suffer the same issue.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
Can't wait to find out whether McGrath is a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist :)
axolotl5 4 months ago
@axolotl5 You could just do some research to find out that he is neither.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven I took your advice, and though I read in Alisters writings that he sees more than two options, we could break down christian views into many sub views, but ultimately just as we question the existence of God or not, the earth is either less than 6000 years old, according some or many theists, or greater than several billion years old according to sciientists, I'm curious what proportion of Theists fall into each of these two camps? What about you?
axolotl5 3 months ago
@axolotl5 First, I'm absolutely floored that you actually took my advice! I'm far more accustomed to having my recommendation to research met with elaborate and argumentative reasons not to!
Now, the problem in your question is that it's actually two separate questions, one on whether the Christian God exists and a separate one on how old the universe is. If you try to combine them, say with God or not on the X-axis and the age of the unvierse on the Y, there are at least 4 possible answers..
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@axolotl5 #1) That the Christian God exists and the universe is only 6000 years old (ie: the Genesis Creation stories are both literal fact)
#2) That the Christian God exists and the universe is several billion years old (ie: the Genesis Creation stories are not literal fact)
#3) That the Christian God does not exist but scientists are still wrong about the age of the universe anyways (it's WEIRD, but I've met atheist Creationists)
#4) No God, universe several billion years old...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@axolotl5 I'm sure there are any number of studies you could look at to figure out a rough number of how many Christians adhere to YE Creationism, OE Creationism, theistic evolution, etc. It also isn't particularly hard to dig up the formal doctrinal documentation of various denominations regarding human origins. As for myself, I am a theistic evolutionist: let the Bible say what it was intended to say, let scientific questions be answered by science, let theology be informed by all disciplines
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@axolotl5 I have spent time among mainline Protestants, evangelical and charismatic Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox -- only certain segments within the evangelical and charismatic worlds have any issue with evolution or the age of the earth: those among Catholics and Orthodox that I've met who have any issue with modern scientific findings have been, exclusively, ex-evangelicals. Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainliners are all as alienated by this feature as you are.
aelvonus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Dawkins, you are not God, please stop acting like your one. Thank you.
Rushyyz 4 months ago
Comment removed
Rushyyz 4 months ago
Holy shit!! Which Richard Dawkins is this?! What did they do with the real one who blusters and vomits up ad hominems all over people who believe different things than him?!
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago 2
@CoryTheRaven Did Dawkins burst the bubble that you live in?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Well, it certainly blew my mind to find out that he has ways of addressing people that don't involve him being a complete asshole.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Well not whitwashing ones position usually hurts the feelings of folks who do not support a similar thought. Especially when the opposing position can be backed by data.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn That's the fun thing about being honest: it exposes what is really in your heart, what your actual motivations are. Is it a genuine difference of opinion that can be debated in good faith, or is it really just gratuitous assholery? In Dawkins' case, the impression is that he is being dishonest when he is being civil. It has nothing to do with "whitewashing" or being "backed by data" or hurting people's feelings and everything to do with being an asshole.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " That's the fun thing about being honest: it exposes what is really in your heart, what your actual motivations are "
And what do you think motivates Dr. Dawkins? Do you get upset when he calls your god a bully? I would too if I believed your god existed. However I recommend you stop watching interviews and debates by Dawkins if you dont like what he has to say about your god.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn I think Dawkins is motivated by a rather prosaic contempt for people whose beliefs differ from his own. He thinks he's right and that if everyone thought as he did, all the world's problems would be solved. He's no different from any other bigot.
...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " I think Dawkins is motivated by a rather prosaic contempt for people whose beliefs differ from his own. He thinks he's right and that if everyone thought as he did, all the world's problems would be solved. He's no different from any other bigot. "
You are doing the same thing that you accuse Dawkins or doing.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn M'nope. I have never made wholesale condemnations of views that differ from my own, or accused parents with views different from my own abusing their children, or advocated for the political suppression of people whose views differ from my own. It would philosophically difficult for me to accomplish, given that I'm a Lutheran with a book of Rumi's poetry, a string of emi boards, a rosary in my pocket, a braid of sweetgrass and a job teaching science.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Can you think of any holy book where our modern understanding of science has ever been presented accurately?. You force connect your belief for your god with science where none exists. Then you claim compatiblity. Sorry, wanting to live in heaven is not strong enough evidence for this so-called compitablity.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn I am walking evidence of the compatibility by virtue of being a religious person with a grad degree in theology as well as a professional science educator with an undergrad background in geology (not to mention the volunteer work I do with numerous local science origanizations). You may disagree with the particulars of my beliefs, but you cannot factually say that I have been unable to reconcile my faith and my love of science.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven You confuse faith with the testablity of science. They are not compatibly. I bet you believe in the after life.That you will get resurrected to be with your god in his heaven that he created specially for you. I bet you think that humans are special and that the laws of the natural world, such as death, do not affect us as they do MERE animals. That assumation is based on faith not scientific observation.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn I'm not confusing anything. I know the category faith falls into and I know the category science falls into. Nor did I make any argument of the kind you're ascribing to me. All I said is that there are religious scientists and pro-science doctrines in mainline religious sects. Therefore, from a strictly factual, non-theoretical perspective, science and religion are compatible. You're the one trying to confuse things.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven I think this ' compatiblity ' is an illusion that is conjured by the religous who undertsand the nature of science but who want to still adhere to thier forfathers religous traditions. Then they try to mesh the two together and try to apply the mechanisms of science to thier personal belief in gods. What I do believe is that for a TIME the relgious try to work both but in the end they have to give up one. In most cases for the humble person its usually the belief for a god.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn I don't get upset that he has a difference of opinion from me. What I find contemptible about him is the fact that he knowlingly lies about people who have a difference of opinion from him. By now he has no excuse for making strawman arguments, false dilemmas, hasty generalizations, argumentum ad Hitlerum and so on. But he still does it, because that is his bread and butter. He's an idealogue and an asshole.
But I watch debates with him because I enjoy watching him put in his place.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " What I find contemptible about him is the fact that he knowlingly lies about people who have a difference of opinion from him "
Can you provide an example of this.
" By now he has no excuse for making strawman arguments, false dilemmas, hasty generalizations, argumentum ad Hitlerum and so on. "
Can you post a debate were has somone NEVER used any of these arguments/points?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Any time he's said that science and religion are incompatible is an example of a bald-faced factual lie. He might think that the cohesion of them is philosophically objectionable, but there are plenty of practicing scientists and pro-science doctrines of mainstream sects that reconcile them in practice. To say, as he does in Enemies of Reason, that "faith" and "reason" are the only ways of looking at the world and they are incompatible, he isdeliberately engaged in thought-control...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " Any time he's said that science and religion are incompatible is an example of a bald-faced factual lie "
Science and religon IS incompatible.
"
but there are plenty of practicing scientists and pro-science doctrines of mainstream sects that reconcile them in practice"
Name one pro-science doctrine that can be found in a holy book. That is practiced by a scientist.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn "Science and religon IS incompatible."
Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Ian Barbour, Farouk El-Baz, Freeman Dyson, Ahmed H. Zewail, Ken Miller, Bob Bakker, Denis Alexander, Jennifer Wiseman, etc., etc. would probably disagree with you, strenuously.
"Name one pro-science doctrine that can be found in a holy book. That is practiced by a scientist."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 159.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Listing folks who are scientists and still practice thier religon do not to negate the fact that thier religous views are correct and that a god exists my friend. For example Collins he became a christian because it bothered him that thier was so much suffering in the world. I dont think it occured to him that suffering is shared by all creatures on our planet. By the way I have read books by Francis collins and Ken Miller ETC. I used Millers text in Biology.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn The mere EXISTENCE of theistic scientists disproves the false dilemma that one must choose between the incompatible poles of science and religion. If science and religion were incompatible in FACT, then none of these people could sustain being both. They do. Ergo, the hypothesis that science and religion are incompatible is factually incorrect.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " The mere EXISTENCE of theistic scientists disproves the false dilemma that one must choose between the incompatible poles of science and religion"
You just commited a logical fallacy. You frist have to establish that theistic beliefs ARE based on reasonable observational evidence and THAT is something that is impossible to do.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn I did nothing of the sort. I said that science and religion are compatible, not that they are the same.
Let's use another example. I say that it is possible to be a scientist and an artist. You obviously disagree because I have yet to establish that art is based on reasonable observational evidence. Furthermore, it would be impossible to establish this fact because THAT IS NOT WHAT ART IS ABOUT.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRavenarticle (1) ........159 " Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, Cont
wowamonn 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven (2) " can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are "
Umm still waiting for a scientific doctine that has been presented in the bible. Theory of Evolution, Gravity Etc.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn "Umm still waiting for a scientific doctine that has been presented in the bible. Theory of Evolution, Gravity Etc."
I never argued that an accurate picture of a scientific discovery has ever been presented in a holy book. What I said is that there are pro-science doctrines of mainline religious sects. I just cited one to you. If you do not think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church guides Catholic doctrine and practice, then you are way out to lunch.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " . I just cited one to you. If you do not think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church guides Catholic doctrine and practice, then you are way out to lunch. "
I grew up a Catholic mate made first communion and confession. Trust me I know all about the ' compitablity " that is presented by the Church and science. Then began attending a fundemetalist church for 15 years until I rejected the belief in a god 3 years ago. Been there done that.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn So you were a Catholic as a child, then did time as a fundamentalist (who are reknowned for their intellectualism) as a teenager/young adult, and now you're an angry atheist. And you have the audacity to question OTHER people's motivations?! Wow, take the log out from thine own eye there buddy.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Sorry, mate but I became an Athiest because I realized that there was actually no evidence for your god. I think you do to. but you would never admit it. That is why you get so pissed at Dawkins who say to the religous that god is a figment of a humans imagination.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn The trouble with trying to second-guess motivations is that it might make YOU feel very good about yourself but people are generally pretty knowledgeable about THEIR OWN beliefs. All you're doing is telling yourself "yeah, deep down these people think exactly the same way I do, they're just not as honest and fearless as me to admit it." It's self-serving and does nothing to address the actual argument that is being stated. It is a very fundamentalist Christian thing to do though.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Of course you second guess your beliefs I dont know of any christians who do not. Its amazing that you admit that your god, who created the Universe, that is based on Mathematics and Physics had nothing to say on the matter but gave instructions on when you can sleep with your wife, for how long, Etc. And none of this nonsense throughs up a red flag in your mind that maybe this literture may not be inspired after all?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn THere is a distinct difference between the constant learning and growth engaged in by religious people and you trying to second-guess them with assertions that they REALLY think the same way you do.
Again, there is no reason to expect God to impart detailed knowledge of particle physics to bronze-age humanity. The lack of a a Biblical book on quantum mechanics is utterly irrelevant to me. It also lacks books on aesthetic theory and how to fix a TV. So what?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven I knew you would you use the ' god did not inspire scientific knowledge in the bible because humans were to stupid to understand scientific explinations argument, ' What an assinine excuse for the ignorance of the bible.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn LoL. I also said that it did not include aesthetic theory or instructions on TV repair. The Bible is a collection of books oriented towards a specific purpose, which is to chroncile the experience of the Jewish and later Christian people with God. It is not about anything extraneous to that. To suggest otherwise is to impose your own idea of what the Bible OUGHT to be instead of assessing the Bible on what it was MEANT to be.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " The Bible is a collection of books oriented towards a specific purpose, which is to chroncile the experience of the Jewish and later Christian people with God "
This should have read ....." Jewish and later Christian people with ONE of thier Gods "
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn There is latent material in Scripture for the Hebrews' henotheistic phase, but it is pretty difficult not to notice that the major trend of the Bible is monotheistic.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " There is latent material in Scripture for the Hebrews' henotheistic phase, but it is pretty difficult not to notice that the major trend of the Bible is monotheistic. "
You dont know much of how your bible was written and selected to be canon do you?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn I have a graduate degree in theology, so I certainly hope I know a little something.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " I have a graduate degree in theology, so I certainly hope I know a little something "
Thats odd and you still think that the bible was inspired by a super being? Wait, did you go to a Private Seminary?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " . To suggest otherwise is to impose your own idea of what the Bible OUGHT to be instead of assessing the Bible on what it was MEANT to be. "
Whats funny is that the modern religus thinkers do the same.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Yes, some do. Creationists, for example. You would probably know more about that than me. You did time in three religions - Catholicism, Fundamentalism and Atheism - that impose themselves on the Bible.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Atheism is not a religon. I am surprised that you would say this.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... For some atheists, the tolerable ones, religion is a non-issue. they live their lives like it doesn't matter, because to them it doesn't. They don't go around harranguing people who believe in things they don't. For other atheists, religion is very much an issue. They are true believers in the philosophy of atheism, and feel compelled to go around preaching it at every opportunity. They - you - behave exactly like any fundamentalist.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven No matter how much you dislike the fact that atheists often mock the religious, that does not make atheism a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion.
axolotl5 3 months ago
@axolotl5 As per William James, "religion" is however a person orients themselves to whatever it is that they believe to be the ultimate truth of reality. The content of those beliefs is not so significant, from a psychological and sociological perspective, as the behaviours. If you run around being rigidly intolerant of beliefs that differ from your own, certain that yours are The Truth[tm] and the world's problems would be solved by conversion to them, how is that not fundamentalism?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " are true believers in the philosophy of atheism, and feel compelled to go around preaching it at every opportunity. They - you - behave exactly like any fundamentalist."
And what exactly are the beliefs of Atheism?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Well guess what mate, I like you, unfortunatly you let the belief of your forfathers blind the logical thinking that creep up in your mind every now and then that question the existance for your god. Why dont you just try being an Aheist for a couple of months and apply Darwinian thinking to everyday activites and you will see a diffrence on how you approach life. Relgious beliefs are narrow minded in its world view and do not leave room for reasonble thinking.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Again, you are assuming a great deal about how I think. Since I was never a Catholic nor a Fundamentalist, I think it's pretty safe to assume that my experience is quite different from your own and that I think in quite different ways from you. How about addressing what I say instead of trying to second-guess my motives and imposing your drama on me? Like, okay dude, you have issues about being a Fundie for 15 years. I get it. No need to take it out on every Christian you meet.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " I never argued that an accurate picture of a scientific discovery has ever been presented in a holy book "
Then why believe in a book that was written by humans whose beliefs were based on ignorance and superstition? Who claimed that super beings spoke to them in the desert. You accept these stories based on what?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Why would I look for scientific data in a collection of books written by pre-scientific people? The assertion that all ancient literature is bunk simply because it is ancient is anti-intellectual, arrogant, baseless nonsense that makes we weep more for the illiteracy of the modern age than for any offense to my specific beliefs.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " The assertion that all ancient literature is bunk simply because it is ancient is anti-intellectual, arrogant, baseless nonsense that makes we weep more for the illiteracy of the modern age than for any offense to my specific beliefs. "
Do you feel the same about the Gitas of the Hindu faith? .They contain no scientific information. They were written by supersitious pre-scientific people yet you dont think of them as inspired, why?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn The Baghavad Gita I disagree with because it is essentially a giant defense of uncritical social hierarchy. In the terminology of Neitszche, it is an example of "master morality". As such, it runs directly counter to what I believe to be true via the example of Jesus and subsequent conviction of human equality. In short, I believe them wrong because they contradict what I believe to be true.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " As such, it runs directly counter to what I believe to be true via the example of Jesus and subsequent conviction of human equality. In short, I believe them wrong because they contradict what I believe to be true "
Isnt it strange that what you believe to be true was also the faith you grew up in? What a coincidence.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn No coincidence at all.
First of all, I have no reason to believe that I am so unlucky that it is impossible for me to have been born into the right religion. There is no reason to preference conversion as an instrument of truth.
Secondly, you're assuming that I haven't questioned my beliefs and found them generally preferable to alternatives. But of course you would: apparently every time you had a question, you changed beliefs.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " THere is a distinct difference between the constant learning and growth engaged in by religious people and you trying to second-guess them with assertions that they REALLY think the same way you do"
And exactly what is this learning and growth? To plug in your god into scientific unknowns? How far will the religous back-pedal when science cotinues to chip away at religous expilnations for the workings of the Universe.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn "To plug in your god into scientific unknowns?"
Nope, and I don't know of any theologians who subscribe to a God of the Gaps model. Atheists keep saying that we do, but that seems like your classic second-guessing our motives instead of actually paying attention to what we say.
By learning and growth, I meant the constant exercise of deepening my understanding of both my religious tradition and the traditions of others through constant study.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " By learning and growth, I meant the constant exercise of deepening my understanding of both my religious tradition and the traditions of others through constant study "
Well at least you reconize the fact that your religous beliefs is based on tradition and not ' truth '
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn The reason that traditions live long enough to become traditions is because they hold within them some seed of truth.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " The reason that traditions live long enough to become traditions is because they hold within them some seed of truth "
Do you watch NOVA on PBS?
wowamonn 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " Nope, and I don't know of any theologians who subscribe to a God of the Gaps model. Atheists keep saying that we do, but that seems like your classic second-guessing our motives instead of actually paying attention to what we say. "
The reason the religous is ignored is that the reliogus, insist that thier god is the creator of the Universe and science has demonstrated that a god had nothing to do with natural processes.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn No, the reason they are ignored when they describe their beliefs and expected to sit there while atheists tell them what their beliefs "really" are is that this brand of atheist are so hateful that they feel under no obligation to be respectful.
For example, our entire conversation has been you going "YOU THINK THIS, POOHEAD!" and me replying "No, this is what I believe" over and over and over again. You have yet to figure out how to listen rather than tell people what they think.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@wowamonn ..."Can you post a debate were has somone NEVER used any of these arguments/points?"
So you admit that he does engage in logical fallacies.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven I see that you are a fan of WLC the master of logical fallacies.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven " So you admit that he does engage in logical fallacies. "
Some folks do like your aplogetic hero WLC. However I have yet to run across one that is used by Dawkins.
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Strawman arguments, hasty generalizations and association fallacy, false dilemmas, red herrings, bad faith arguments, argumentum ad absurdum, appeal to ridicule, reductio ad Hitlerum, genetic fallacy, quoting out of context and cherry picking, moving the goalposts, thought terminating cliches, appeal to motive, and the ever popular ad hominem attack. Watching a Dawkins video or reading a Dawkins article is like witnessing a living, breathing encyclopedia of logical fallacies.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven I personally think you dont like Dawkins because he exposes the man made institution that is religon and the existance for gods has never been proven. Dawkins arguments lay waste to the nonsense that is presented by the aplogists such as WLC, Strobel, White Etc..
wowamonn 3 months ago
@wowamonn Wow, you second-guess my motives! Shocking I tell you! Truly shocking!
Personally I think that you think that I don't like Dawkins because he exposes the man made institution that is religion because I'm exposing the man made institution that is Dawkins.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
this is one of the few calm, civil debates (perhaps the only) that i have seen between an apologist and an atheist, bravo
SuperWonderface 4 months ago
Mcgrath looks really confident.
proximaism 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In all years of reading and listening to debates on the subject, this is the most rational and amiable discussion I've heard. For once, and Athiest and a Thiest are listening to each other and reasoning, not bashing. I'm something of a diest; I've read Dawkin's The God Delusion and recommend it. I have yet to read anything of McGrath.
dancepartyaesthetics 5 months ago
In all years of reading and listening to debates on the subject, this is the most rational and amiable discussion I've heard. For once, and Athiest and a Thiest are listening to each other and reasoning, not bashing. I'm something of a diest; I've read Dawkin's The God Delusion and recommend it. I have yet to read anything of McGrath.
dancepartyaesthetics 5 months ago
This guys make me smile. I'm a christian and I just love seeing people who have two different beliefs on how humans were formed and act it out not like 8 year old's fighting for the last cookie or in this case who is smarter than the other! I love watching this. Because it's proof even a topic witch is completely disregarded in society can be acted out in such a formal manner. Not with people going like screw you you stupid Christian! Or how can you athiests come up with this BS?!
TacticalPie 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist I heard him say the things I mentioned, that makes me 100% qualified to discuss those things. Sorry if you can't follow the written word. I am angry because your stupidity frustrates me.
adolthitler 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist Im not reviewing his book you fucking retard, I am commenting on things he has SAID in videos I have watched. You sound like an idiot, who can't comprehend his opinions are expressed out of his MOUTH as well as in his books. Maybe you should go deeper than the "cover" of my comments.
adolthitler 5 months ago
I've seen McGrath being interviewed on religious programmes, on Revelation TV for example. When he is in a dogma friendly environment, and unchallenged by rational dissent, his views are a lot more unreasonable, and his "strawman" interpretations of people like Dawkins and Hitchens are disgraceful.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist I have not read his books, but I have watched many debates he took part in. I have heard out of his mouth, no fallacy comitted. He talks of his atheism and laughing off christian doctrines as he hears them. Later he (I guess receives a blow to the head) and sees the "logic" and "beauty" of christianity and it makes the most sense to him. However if he was raised in a muslim country he would have been laughing off Islam till it made sense to him. He should be a deist.
adolthitler 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist We know his reasons for being a christian, we want him to see one of them. If you ask him why he is a christian he will fake an answer with "faith". He keeps saying it makes the most sense to him. However it makes sense to him, because he was raised among christians. Not because he has any evidence or logic for it.
adolthitler 5 months ago
We have all the resources to make the world a better place for everyone but we are too stupid and ignorant so we invoke the existence of a "GOD" so we don't have to be responsible for anything. People who cannot think critically need god the rest of us don't.
nbaprophet100 5 months ago in playlist Atheism, Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, etc.
@CartesianTheist A question is not a fallacy. Its an attempt to understand where he is coming from. After all he claims to have a rational basis to his christianity so he has evidence of god, and that it is a christian god.
adolthitler 5 months ago in playlist Atheism, Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, etc.
@CartesianTheist No need to be sorry. An atheist believes NO gods exist, whichever country or background they originate in. So a Saudian Arabian atheist is the same as the German atheist. It has nothing to do with "genetics" and everything to do with your parent's beliefs and hence your upbringing.
lewisner 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist No need to be sorry. An atheist believes NO gods exist, whichever country or background they originate in. So a Saudian Arabian atheist is the same as the German atheist. It has nothing to do with "genetics" and everything to do with your parent's beliefs and hence your upbringing.
lewisner 5 months ago
So lets see...he grows up in Ireland, is an "atheist" thends up with the judeo-christian "god". Why didn't he become a hindu, sikh or muslim I wonder?
lewisner 5 months ago
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins God is his own ego. Well, I suppose one can worship that too.
0prahW 6 months ago
I love how civilized and proper they are with one another, all the while getting their jabs in with a sweet smile on their faces. So very, very British. Cup of tea?
bboots100 6 months ago
Perfect example of how two intelligent men of opposing views can dialogue without rudeness, arrogance, and condescension.
AraimaiAria 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
At Dawkin's Anti-Christ question at 2:18, I would have added: because of the nature of atheism, the rage, defiance, and vitriol being dished out to Christians on YouTube are much worse than Dawkin's hand-picked debates. I've seen atheists threaten to kill theists over a fight. The other problem resides in the fact that many atheists are frustrated homosexuals and they love evolution to prove their sex orientation is the result of evolution... You argue against that? Watch your back.
RayTech70 6 months ago
@RayTech70 You are right, without any doubt.
I, myself, am a closeted homosexual and very frustrated with the lack of acceptance in society.
I therefore love evolution and the chance at scientifically validated acceptance it offers me.
Actually I think I'm quite turned on by you, right now.
Want to ... "ape" around a bit? I think I have something ... "evolving" over here if you know what I mean.
Feel like doing some ... "STEM cell" research myself.
AlexRider001 6 months ago
whoa are they reading a script or sth?
FrostMan92 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Thank you so much for showing us that people on two sides of an issue can actually have a reasonable conversation and intellectual dialogue without insults or tempers. Political "debates" are no more than a battle of insults and expensive suits, C v E "debates" are just as bad. This debate is a reasonable conversation where it seems that each member actually cares about influencing each other, not just trying to make the other look stupid.
dragonfiremalus 7 months ago 19
As a christian, The reason why Dawkins is the best known atheist and leader of new atheism is simple:
he has great knowledge about biology, but small knowledge about theology
but he has great ability to write complicated facts accessible and easily understandable way, replacing facts with popular writing
Religion desperately needs leader like him
McGrqrath, on the other hand seems a little confusing, but he's respectable oponent
it's not important what you say, but the way you say it
gogolplex74 7 months ago
I dont think theres a meaning to life, were just here
ThanksDoctorThoctor 7 months ago
@ThanksDoctorThoctor And that's what we call an individual determination to the puzzle of how everything that exists came into existence. The question is, will you start WWIII with the people who decide any other conclusion?
LordShivasServant 7 months ago
Both are brilliant speakers although I am on Alisters side:)
PhysiologicAli 7 months ago
this conversation context is much better than the formal debate... it allows for a free exchange of ideas and good conter-argumentation.
94jmcorrea 7 months ago
Shaft head tilt irl.
EnigmaticTbay 7 months ago
I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but McGrath could have easily asked Hitchens how he felt having the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung Ill, and Castro among others in his camp? Sure there are some kooky Christians who may want to do violence in the name of Christianity and that is, no doubt, unfortunate. But a lot less unfortunate than the 100,000,000's killed in the name of Atheism in just one century. (For the record, I do NOT group Mr. Hitchens with these, only making a point)
AlejandroSanchez3000 7 months ago
@AlejandroSanchez3000
communism is very different in comparing atheism,atheism is no belief in god , communism as portrayed by the the soviets,Cubans chinese etc...is an example as the state being their god. the 100 million killed were not a direct result of atheism....the crusades which caused millions of civilian deaths and the inquisitions for example was a direct result of Christianity .
Paletero336 7 months ago
@Paletero336 Well I'm afraid that's not entirely true. The Crusades spanned 100's of years during which, not even one million people lived in the holy land. And the Spanish Inquistion lasted approx. 350 yrs. Resulting in about 2000 deaths. (6/yr) Sure thats 2000 to many but Communism in the 20th century was all about creating a new man. (Marx) Belief in God was the biggest threat to this new idea. So Communists absolutely killed in the name of atheism.
AlejandroSanchez3000 7 months ago
@AlejandroSanchez3000
they killed in the name of their politics beliefs..atheism wasn't the primary reason...most atheist don't hold communist beliefs because like a dogmatic religion hinders free thought and creativity.
Paletero336 7 months ago