What mutually-buttressed evidence are you talking about? Natural Selection? These methods are just man made mumbo jumbo. Information can only come from an intelligent source, since it requires not only bits of data, but also the ability to decode and understand that data. Without both the data and the understanding, information is useless. Thus, living systems could not have arisen through genetic mistakes and must have been created to function as complete systems
@gregrutz God (The intelligent source) cannot be seen the way that we are now. We have been separated from God through our sin and therefore God's justice demands death towards sin. That is why God says in scripture "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." because "the wages of sin is death". Therefore we need reconciliation to God through a means where God's justice has been satisfied, namely the sacrifice of Jesus Christ his son. Also the miracles have not stopped
PART 2 - The Catholic church is wrong in so many ways. They have erred in their ways because they don't even follow the scriptures, instead they follow traditions handed down by fallible popes. Study the scriptures my friend, especially the new testament. Don't follow the catholic church, follow the bible. You want testimony of God? The scripture says that those who come to Jesus and believe that he has risen from the grave are indwelt with his Holy Spirit and have the witness in themselves.
@gregrutz Ignorance is such a bummer. You know nothing of my life and yet you say that i have had a religious brainwash. Don't speak about what you don't know. You don't know where I've been, what I've been through or what I've done so where are you coming from claiming to know me? You think everything that is against your form of thought is a brainwashing, well I believe your the one that is brainwashed.The sad thing is that you don't even know you've been brainwashed by the society of this age
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
This alister guy reminds me of a group of people who worship a guy with a big afro. Alister talks just like them. I guess this Indian with a big afro is as real as Alister's Jesus.
McGrath says in response to Dawkins' criticism of existence and origin that it is too difficult to go that far back and work out what actually went on. Then, McGrath proceeds to say his belief stems primarily from the life of Jesus, which - if at all - occurred over 2000 years ago. Just how easy is it to go back 2011 years and work out what actually went on there?
And how reliable do you truly believe those written records are, given that they've been re-translated dozens of times, passed through kings and monarchies and amended for optimum social control, censored, adapted, edited. Not to mention the fact that what you're saying suggests the bible is adequate evidence for Christ's existence. Bit of a biased source, don't you think? No reputable historians have recorded his existence or supposed miracles, just the cultist followers..
@ModestWR Do some research, and you can see how reliable they are. Compare archeological finds with biblical records, and especially look at the book of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, predating even what were formerly the oldest manuscripts, and you find that it is still identical to today's versions. The telephone-game premise you propose only works when the people playing it aren't trying to be accurate.
@studentofthegospel I'm all about mature discussion and respect for people's faith, but it's hard to take you seriously when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the bible was written by dozens of people who never knew Christ or communicated with God. How about archaeological findings such as dinosaur fossils? How about the plethora of evidence for evolution? Correction, sir: the premise I propose only fails when you delude yourself into believing in impossibilities.
@ModestWR Your beliefs are based on a few assumptions... using the previous paragraph, I'll mention a few. You assume biblical authors did not communicate with God. You assume that dinosaur fossils disprove the Bible somehow. You assume there is evidence for large-scale evolution (is that macro? I'm unsure) The truth is, there is not a single transitional form in the entire fossil record, when there should be an unending stream of them.
@studentofthegospel Okay, you just alluded to the fact that you think the theory of evolution lacks credibility. That is absolutely astounding, and your credibility as a rational human being has just vanished. All of the assumptions you highlighted are indeed assumptions - fair assumptions. Justified assumptions, based on rational truths and natural laws, aside from the fossil disprovement - it's more of a contradiction.
The evidence for evolution is in every living thing.
@ModestWR Listen, there is a level at which evolution is clearly fact. Creatures clearly adapt and change on a very small level. There is also a level on which no evolution occurs. There is no proof, and no evidence, that one creature ever became another. Call it what you will, but there is more evidence of God than there is of Darwinism. What makes your assumptions fair to you, is that they are yours. I happen to believe otherwise, and to me they are obviously false.
@studentofthegospel There is absolutely no evidence for God, and Evolution never claims that one creature "became" another, only that mutations in certain species gave rise to other species ALONGSIDE the existing species which may or may not die out or be superceded. There is no evidence in God, I must repeat. If there were any evidence at all, Christianity wouldn't be such a philosophical and ontological laughing stock.
@ModestWR how is Christianity a laughingstock? Evolution, which has never been observed and can never be observed above the micro level, (which means there's no proof) has had a far smaller positive impact on the world than Christianity.
@studentofthegospel it's a shame you think it can't be observed. Every respected theologist in the world (most of them anyway) has accepted evolution for fact. There is no vague suggestion or theory, it's as clear as that the earth is round. You might enjoy reading Dawkins book: "the greatest show on earth" to understand what the undeniable proof really is.
I could try and debate with you, but if you care about the truth, please read it and draw your conclusion.
@studentofthegospel Evolution has been observed. There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by 99.98% of biologists.
@gregrutz That an exact percentage? 100% of scientists believed Aristotle's claim that the fly had four legs, until one of them thought for himself and checked. Your numbers don't impress me except with the duplicity and stupidity of the masses. I've looked at much of the supposed "proof" of evolution. It's fanciful garbage. The fossil record alone destroys the theory completely. Micro evolution has been observed... but a change in hair color does not a new organ make.
@studentofthegospel Exactly.People that actually fall for evolution are idiotic for not believing the bible when evolution sounds more of a fantasy than the bible.There is no way evolution can be believed. As I said before;Information can only come from an intelligent source, since it requires not only bits of data, but also the ability to decode and understand that data.Thus,living systems could not have arisen through genetic mistakes and must have been created to function as complete systems
Dawkins is asking questions which require very long answers that both exist and are held by intelligent theists. the problem with this interview is that Dawkins is allowed to ask all the questions that require intricate and long explanations to be satisfactory. with the short time allowed to answer each question, almost anything McGrath says will seem insufficient. its almost silly. they should each submit questions in written format and blog it somewhere, or else dedicate days for an interview
Would it be fair to say Christians adopt a faith, because they want to live beyond death, while Atheists accept death as final, but want to understand reality. The motivations are different, and both cannot be true. However, the answer to the more probable scenario lies in the rationality of the motivations.
@axolotl5 You make a fair point, but I don't think that truth can be sought or derived based on rationality of motivations. Truth is derived from evidence - at least, objective truth. An argument can be rational, but it can still be technically "untrue". I used to think that rationality was the key ingredient, but it's not - many truths in mathematics and science are inherently irrational or contradictory, but they are considered "true" due to mutually-buttressed evidence.
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
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that McGrath pretty much just talks in circles? When Dawkins makes what he calls a "good point" or an "important point", he then deftly side-steps said point and makes a vague and almost deliberately confusing statement as a way of smoothing over the disagreement. I find McGrath to be a pretty lousy defender of the faith he purports to have, really.
@stevenut88 No. That is wrong. Most Christians do NOT believe the Bible to be 100% true. But we all here appreciate your attempt to join in with the discussion, it must be so hard for an, dare i say it, "intellect" such as yourself (y)
bottom line,if ur a christian then u belive the bible 2 be 100% true,,,then u belive in a talking snake in the garden of eden,and that makes u a fukin retarded moreon who need mental help
this is a brilliant debate, I think people should at least respect Prof. McGrath's point of view as much as Prof. Dawkins does, neither of these individuals are pretending that their argument is much better than the other, they are both well-matched and both delivering a very good debate.
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
The problem here is that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. This is his "thing", and it's what he hammers away at. He doesn't expand into psychology, philosophy, or cultural history. And I think both him and his Disciples would really benefit if he expanded his repertoire of sciences.
The realities of early Christianity & opposing groups are sidelined by churches, colleges, theologians, ministers etc. because it opens a whole new can of worms & the subject is too complex & in some cases destroys belief systems, most involved in this mess don't know or understand it. But it's precisely for that reason that the mess of Christianity & way too many denominations have evolved. The unifying zeal of political/religious leaders blended it all together to avoid complications.
Earliest Christians didn't use the Torah & were against it bcus it was from a different alien cult: Pharisees. Thru time it all got grouped together & then the idea of "gods plan" evolved to explain the inconsistencies. The 3 main groups were: (1) Nazarenes/Essenes. (2) Saducees. (3) Pharisees. Each 1 had it's own religion & politics & all 3 were very different from each other. Moderns who call Jesus a Jew or act like he followed Torah basics are incorrect. He was completely against them.
Greatest mistake of Christians & opposers is ignorance of historical facts. The Pharisees institutionalizing animal sacrifice canonizing Leviticus & Deuteronomy is a later development that became accepted as an original part of the religion or 'Gods plan'. It was not original & was only a political movement that had its own cult. Jesus was only restoring the religion to what it was. That's why the bible contradicts itself: Sacrifices=Torah, then later on unnecessary thru the prophets & NT.
The 'Jesus died for sins ideas' or 'ultimate final sacrifice' are designed for a primitive society that had sacrificial beliefs & Jesus' concepts are to civilize & evolve them. Christianity portrayed as an outgrowth of Torah Judaism is incorrect. Christian ideals went against basics of Pharisee/Judaism, so it's not of that. An original Melkizedek bread & wine Priesthood was forced out of Jerusalem during the Macabeean revolt, that then brought in animal sacrifice priests under the Hasmoneans.
So what Alister McGrath is saying here is, we need to take accounts written minimum of 30 years after Jesus, which has been heavily edited over 2000 years, relying on stupefied, uneducated, towns folk, who were already on the look out for a 'prophet' mentioned in the OT who were amazed by the most trivial event, and gave magical, superstitious, attributes to those events, and except them as facts?
Very nice man, but very poor way of excepting evidence.
The point i would like to make would be this... McGrath seems to me to talk in such an overly complicated way so as to avoid answering any of the question's that Dawkins asks.
@dujl I understand what hes saying thank you very much. My point was that he could say it all in a much simpler way but he chooses not to, it's a trait of religious people to try to sound as complex as they can. Richard Dawkins doesn't do that, in fact he goes out of his way to simplify what hes saying, that's why you often see him pausing. He is thinking of how to put across his words in as simple a way as possible so that there are no misunderstandings.
@LuffyDragonMonkey It's funny, I don't even think it's avoidance for Dawkins sake, it's more avoidance for his own sake. And although he over uses a few phrases, he speaks well in all I think. It's more his arguments that suck, not his tone haha.
Haha, there's not much that's gentlemanly to be found in 'the God delusion'. Please note the appropriate place to use 'Christopher Hitchens' and 'quivering jelly' in the same sentence is in reference to Hitchens debate with William Lane Craig....if you can call it a debate when one of the participants fails to raise a single point of any merit. No wonder Dawkins is running scared from WLC.
So McGrath brings up the point, 'You (Dawkins) would obviously want to investigate the reliability of the life of Christ, but once you read through the New Testement, you'll be so convinced by the accounts of witnesses that you won't need evidence'. Let me just say, McGrath, what a TERRIBLE FUCKING ARGUMENT. The main reason you say you're 'convinced' by 2,000 year old people's account is because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. The son of GOD didn't leave us a damn thing. McGrath-->FAIL
@ChowMeinChowdown You obviously have not studied much on God and His pwer which by the way is INFINITE. And I pay attention to this stuff because I need to study on how to witness to the unbeliever. and by the way you are never gonna disprove God. So go back to your theories with shaky foundation and maybe one day you will realize the Truth. Lord Bless.
@CloverfieldMonster95 How about the little one who believes in a deity who can simultaneously be His own son, and for whom we have zero empirically testable evidence in favour of? Go on, it's about time u recited a prayer or this deity (who is constantly watching u!) might be getting a little jealous at the amount of attention u seem to heap on an apparently unreasonable professor of biology attempting to disprove Him.
The best explanation for that mad idea of resurrection is a historical one. The idea of a messiah is a jewish one. Jews expected the messiah to be a great figure, someone who destroys the enemy (the romans) But was Jesus such a figure? Not at all, he got squashed by the enemy and so his followers had realy a hard time to convince the world, that Jesus was the messiah, so they invented nice storys about Jesus.
@balouthewatz Hey, I really like that idea! I never think about that much, but that seems to make sense! Ha! Of course, once finding an idea one really likes, one must use one's critical thinking skills and do one's own damn research before one accepts it. Being a critical thinker is so tiring!
This reaction brought to you by: Booze and boredom.
@DoctorNociceptor Its not my idea. I think that view is a main view among historians. At least the new testament historian bart ehrman has this view ...
Dawkins is truly blind. You have just to pray for him. He struggles to understand with his ant-like brain but just can't see it.. Sin is the barrier for an atheist to truly understand God. Atheist!, repent of your sins and you will see God.
of course by acknowledging arguments for the existence of God you've made a choice of rejecting them and therefore MADE the choice to be an atheist. atheism is of course a choice, and while it may seem more logical to you it doesn't to the majority of mankind on the planet, learned or not.
The thing I like most about Dawkins' manner in these conversations and debates is his politeness. He obviously has no respect for the beliefs of others, as well he shouldn't, but he only ever attacks the idea and not the person. I think this is the best way to proceed in these situations, even if you've no hope of winning anyone over, as it were.
Well Dawkins views about jesus do not coincide with what I understand Jesus to be. So I think his views of this religion are twisted by his own personal opinions.
@TheBbg83 You will find just as many Christians who disagree with your understanding of Jesus. Are their views on religion twisted by their own personal opinions too? How do you know you have it right and Dawkins and all of these other people got it wrong? What if it is you who is doing the twisting?
@gjsterp That's what theists always do. They make logical sounding points but can never answer a question stright, like why are there natural disasters and viral infections when god is so loving. If they could, they would answer straightly that why in the first place god created a non-perfect universe, and why jesus failed to fix it either. They didn't answer when I started to doubt my faith but yet truly wanted clear answers. Thus they could not keep me in the herd.
Yes, something of decisive importance did happen, which transformed their lives. And when Mohammad convinced others of the truth of his statements, something of decisive importance happened which transformed those lives. And when Buddha spoke, he also transformed people's lives. So how can honest seekers choose which of these men told the truth?
Perhaps none of them told the truth. Not in their essential doctrinal differences, at least.
Dawkins has made a religion out of atheism. He believes in the soul. Try this video: Daniel Dennett - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews at 3:50 Dawkins say: "a soul can emerge from soulless neurons "; that is theology at it's worst. The neo-Lamarkism selfish gene theory requires a leap of Faith bigger the Holy Trinity. I though atheists were on the evidence required side of the fence if you want to come to the Faith side please do it through the front door. Accept God. God Bless
In conclusion the guy doesn't really know why he is a Christian. It's as simple as he wants comfort in knowing he will be going somewhere when he dies. Instead of wasting Dawkins time he should just say, "Well it's in the bible so it must be true" and then Dawkins can go about his business.
I have no problem with people believing in an unknowing God, it's just when they have to add religion in the picture that things start going downhill. The stories in the bible really makes God into a weak imperfect individual. If there really is a God I'm pretty sure it's not some jealous person in the sky judging everything we do.
Interesting how Dawkin's avoids pressing McGrath's (professor of historical theology) point on the historicity of Jesus Christ with a shotgun blast of questions he finds difficult to answer.
Both are doing well in answering the questions from their respective worldviews.
So pathetic. Dawkins asks valid questions and McGrath blapthers on with rehearsed responses that don't even address the original questions. McGrath has talking points that he seems to launch into when he hears key words from Dawkins questions. It's part answer and part preaching. All Dawkins did with this series is expose another Theist who cannot answer the most basic of questions.
@maykomarquez, I think he does, he seems to answer them quite well actually, btw, notice who's asking the all the questions, I'm sure if it was the other way round then it would be a different story
dude i don't think he was atheist because he didn't know why he didn't believe in god... he just wants the fame of an atheist gone christian... which would be unlikely to happen if the atheist really knows why he doesn't believe
@woodydrn2 : this is strange ... today I happened to watch Noam Chomsky on WF Buckley's show in 1971, and similarly in that case the person with whom I disagree (buckley) spends the entire conversation with his head on a 45 degree angle. Chomsky and Dawkins both keep their heads upright. What does it mean?
@woodydrn2 : this is strange ... today I happened to watch Noam Chomsky on WF Buckley's show in 1971, and similarly in that case the person with whom I disagree (buckley) spends the entire conversation with his head on a 45 degree angle. Chomsky and Dawkins both keep their heads upright. What does it mean?
Okay after watching about five debates between Dawkins and religious people I was hoping this one would stump him in the slightest, but it hasn't. So far at least.
How does an atheist explain this? Why should we be in such a violent reaction against the reality we're apart of? How do nonliving things come together without a directed process and gain the ability to say "I" and "me" and know that something is wrong with what they perceive to be reality? Conundrum at it's best! Lewis saw this.
C.S. Lewis "What is the problem? A universe that contains much that is bad and apparently meaningless, but containing creatures like ourselves who know that it is bad and apparently meaningless. The only view that faces these facts is Christianity in that this is a good world gone wrong yet still retains the memory of what it ought to have been.
alister seems to be fully aware of the weaknesses of his points since hes avoiding answering them and moving the goal posts as richard keeps pushing him back and back after everything he says. I reckon he either is just in a state of denial or that he actually is an athiest but there is too much pressure and debating is part of his job and hed have to stop if he openly admitted it.
after viewing 6 parts of this, Alister is really starting to annoy me...the tilt of his head and awkward prose and mediocre responses starting with "well, you've raised quite an interesting question..." he almost seems to concede then marches on in usual religious fashion with poetic, metaphysical ideological "reason". I don't buy for one second his stature as being a sophisticated theologian. The root of the ideas and dogmas are all the same. No matter how you wiggle about in them...
There are some complex issues that Dawkins raises. To be honest, I struggled years to understand them. But I feel I do. I certainly cannot answer them in 400 characters or less. But the keys I found to understanding them were found in free will (which all Christians don't accept), God existing outside time (he isn't bound to time like we are), and love (if my wife were condemned, I wouldn't worry about what is fair, I would worry about how I could save her). Obviously too deep for 400 chars
@muncyj123 an omnicient all powerful god actually defeats the whole idea of free will. He set into motion everything that would result in the things that influence people and ultimately result in the decisions they make while knowing the future. The arguement for free will is actually an arguement against an omnicient god so i doubt your explanation isnt as good as you think it is even if you didnt have to worry about a word count.
"an omnicient all powerful god actually defeats the whole idea of free will."
An all powerful God is incapable of creating free will? That's absurd. God's omnicient and power are so amazing that he can always accomplish his will even when he doesn't have to control it. I have heard it said that God can take any set of circumstances, throw them in a bag, shake them up, and pull out his perfect will. Smart minds can't grasp that. It makes perfect sense to little mind like mine.
@muncyj123 The free will argument is actually a paradox. If God is omniscient and knows the future then he knows what our "free will" will decide. If there is knowledge of our actions by any being before we make them, then it is a predetermined outcome, which negates free will. The idea of prophecies is an example, if end times are already determined then the actions of the people within those prophecies are also determined, which contradicts free will and iindividual choice
God is not bound to our conception of time. Someone once said that time is what God gives us so that everything doesn't all happen at once. We need time. God does not. Even Einstein taught us that we don't have a perfect handle on this time thing.
Anyway, would it be possible to foreknow something that I did not determine? Of course there is. I could give scores of examples of things I know will happen in the future that I will not determine.
@muncyj123 That God doesn't exist in time doesn't answer the paradox, and is just a conjecture anyway, there's no reason to believe that God ins't constrained by time just like we are, all powerful or not. Besides free will is dependant on a timeline, if everything happened at once there would be no chance to decide anything.
Oh, and not knowing everything about time does not negate it, it simply means we only know certain things about it but we still act accordingly to what we do know
@muncyj123 Saying I've flinched before doesn't answer anything as it is entirely concievable, at least in a theistic sense, that God could stop me from flinching. That is if the premise that he is all powerful is true. And I'm not sure about the Santa Clause thing, that's kind of a non-sequiter
@muncyj123 Futhermore foreknowing certain events, and knowledge of cause and effect are dependant upon the laws of nature being uniform and never changing. If God and anypoint intercedes and changes these principles then you cannot know for certain that these things will happen. For example, God could intercede in any of these examples you could create and allow things not to happen as you would anticipate
@muncyj123 if there was an omnicient all powerful God then how could there be free will? Omniscient means all knowing....therefore God would know all of your decisions before you make them. If God knows what you're going to do before it happens then how is that free will? one obviously can't do something other than what God already knows because then they would be proving God wrong.
@muncyj123 I am not assuming that he is bound by anything.but it is clear that WE are bound by some conception of time. Therefore if God knows what I will do before I have made a conscious decision and am actually percieved doing it. How do I have free will?
@muncyj123 yes I have flinched before. And if God knew beforehand I was going to flinch then I had no choice but to flinch lol. I'm not arguing that there are actions that our conscious minds don't control, I am saying that if God KNOWS about these actions ahead of time, then I do not have a choice on whether or not to actually do them when the time comes. And if I did have a choice that God was unaware of, then he would not be omniscient.
its funny that in the first video, the comments were all praising both of them, but later on everyone realised that McGrath is a complete bullshitter.
@BucketTard Yeah, the points he was making at least had some consistency, I think this was because they were arguing more in the science side of the matter, but the second the discussion turned to religion Alister started rambling, and this is what you see now. Too bad..
The "Primary reason" he believes in God is the same for all believer: the expectation to collect dividends in the form of a wonderful afterlife for dedicating ALL of their credulism to a single intelligent creator.
The "Primary reason" he believes in God is the same for all believer: the expectation to collect dividends in the form of a wonderful afterlife for dedicating ALL of their credulism to a single intelligent creator.
Hmmm I'm just wondering whether I should bother watching the rest of this.. McGrath just rambles on in his own world without ever addressing any of the points raised. Also, has someone attached a heavy weight to his right ear?
@FearsomeGibbonofDoom Dawkins points are so undeniably correct, that the stress caused has tensed up one of McGraths neck muscles. Kidding, who knows.
"McGrath just rambles on in his own world without ever addressing any of the points raised. Also, has someone attached a heavy weight to his right ear?"
@FearsomeGibbonofDoom people tend to put their head to one side, when they are trying making a point, and they will shift their heads to the other side - when making the opposite point - and as you see here, McGrath only has one side.
I was pointing out that what you are saying is a red-herring and I believe that seems to be the strongest argument that the Neo-Atheists can dream up. Get away from Dawkins and read a real Philosopher like Nietzsche if you feel that you must be an atheist.
@PistisIasis "Get away from Dawkins and read a real Philosopher like Nietzsche if you feel that you must be an atheist."
What the heck ... "must be an atheist" ... that's not a choice. I've yet to see a scrap of evidence supporting the existence of a god. If anyone has anything convincing, please let me know. Atheism is no choice I've made, I just don't go around believing things there is no evidence for, and the reasons I see others doing it are virtually always exceedingly poor ones.
Two classy gentlemen.
BobDylan1201 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from sophiasaurus
The Catholic church says the proof is in the miracles but never told us why the miracles stopped 2000 years ago.
gregrutz 1 month ago
What mutually-buttressed evidence are you talking about? Natural Selection? These methods are just man made mumbo jumbo. Information can only come from an intelligent source, since it requires not only bits of data, but also the ability to decode and understand that data. Without both the data and the understanding, information is useless. Thus, living systems could not have arisen through genetic mistakes and must have been created to function as complete systems
SlaveOfCrist 1 month ago
@SlaveOfCrist molecular evolution.
enough said.
yamammiwammi 1 month ago 2
@yamammiwammi You must have not read what I said. It's a shame when people are just bent on only seeing their own way.
SlaveOfCrist 1 month ago
@SlaveOfCrist Show us the ''intelligent source''.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz God (The intelligent source) cannot be seen the way that we are now. We have been separated from God through our sin and therefore God's justice demands death towards sin. That is why God says in scripture "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." because "the wages of sin is death". Therefore we need reconciliation to God through a means where God's justice has been satisfied, namely the sacrifice of Jesus Christ his son. Also the miracles have not stopped
SlaveOfCrist 1 month ago
PART 2 - The Catholic church is wrong in so many ways. They have erred in their ways because they don't even follow the scriptures, instead they follow traditions handed down by fallible popes. Study the scriptures my friend, especially the new testament. Don't follow the catholic church, follow the bible. You want testimony of God? The scripture says that those who come to Jesus and believe that he has risen from the grave are indwelt with his Holy Spirit and have the witness in themselves.
SlaveOfCrist 1 month ago
@SlaveOfCrist How do you know about the Catholic Church except for the religious brainwashing you have had.
So God sent his Son, God #2 to earth and we killed Him and that made the Father so happy he forgave us Adam's sins that we didn't commit, right?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Ignorance is such a bummer. You know nothing of my life and yet you say that i have had a religious brainwash. Don't speak about what you don't know. You don't know where I've been, what I've been through or what I've done so where are you coming from claiming to know me? You think everything that is against your form of thought is a brainwashing, well I believe your the one that is brainwashed.The sad thing is that you don't even know you've been brainwashed by the society of this age
SlaveOfCrist 1 month ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 month ago
@SlaveOfCrist Read a science book IDiot.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@SlaveOfCrist ''Ignorance is such a bummer'' Yup, what science degree do you have?
''everything that is against your form of thought'' My form of thought is called LOGIC, you should learn some.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@SlaveOfCrist ''God's justice demands death towards sin''
Ahhhh, what is that is secular English?!?
gregrutz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
i want to see McGrath ask Dawkins some questions
hello83558 2 months ago
This alister guy reminds me of a group of people who worship a guy with a big afro. Alister talks just like them. I guess this Indian with a big afro is as real as Alister's Jesus.
Starnebula100 3 months ago
McGrath says in response to Dawkins' criticism of existence and origin that it is too difficult to go that far back and work out what actually went on. Then, McGrath proceeds to say his belief stems primarily from the life of Jesus, which - if at all - occurred over 2000 years ago. Just how easy is it to go back 2011 years and work out what actually went on there?
ModestWR 3 months ago
@ModestWR Well, we do have a number of written records describing it...
studentofthegospel 3 months ago
@studentofthegospel
And how reliable do you truly believe those written records are, given that they've been re-translated dozens of times, passed through kings and monarchies and amended for optimum social control, censored, adapted, edited. Not to mention the fact that what you're saying suggests the bible is adequate evidence for Christ's existence. Bit of a biased source, don't you think? No reputable historians have recorded his existence or supposed miracles, just the cultist followers..
ModestWR 3 months ago
@ModestWR Do some research, and you can see how reliable they are. Compare archeological finds with biblical records, and especially look at the book of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, predating even what were formerly the oldest manuscripts, and you find that it is still identical to today's versions. The telephone-game premise you propose only works when the people playing it aren't trying to be accurate.
studentofthegospel 3 months ago
@studentofthegospel I'm all about mature discussion and respect for people's faith, but it's hard to take you seriously when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the bible was written by dozens of people who never knew Christ or communicated with God. How about archaeological findings such as dinosaur fossils? How about the plethora of evidence for evolution? Correction, sir: the premise I propose only fails when you delude yourself into believing in impossibilities.
ModestWR 2 months ago
@ModestWR Your beliefs are based on a few assumptions... using the previous paragraph, I'll mention a few. You assume biblical authors did not communicate with God. You assume that dinosaur fossils disprove the Bible somehow. You assume there is evidence for large-scale evolution (is that macro? I'm unsure) The truth is, there is not a single transitional form in the entire fossil record, when there should be an unending stream of them.
studentofthegospel 2 months ago
@studentofthegospel Okay, you just alluded to the fact that you think the theory of evolution lacks credibility. That is absolutely astounding, and your credibility as a rational human being has just vanished. All of the assumptions you highlighted are indeed assumptions - fair assumptions. Justified assumptions, based on rational truths and natural laws, aside from the fossil disprovement - it's more of a contradiction.
The evidence for evolution is in every living thing.
ModestWR 2 months ago
@ModestWR Listen, there is a level at which evolution is clearly fact. Creatures clearly adapt and change on a very small level. There is also a level on which no evolution occurs. There is no proof, and no evidence, that one creature ever became another. Call it what you will, but there is more evidence of God than there is of Darwinism. What makes your assumptions fair to you, is that they are yours. I happen to believe otherwise, and to me they are obviously false.
studentofthegospel 2 months ago
@studentofthegospel There is absolutely no evidence for God, and Evolution never claims that one creature "became" another, only that mutations in certain species gave rise to other species ALONGSIDE the existing species which may or may not die out or be superceded. There is no evidence in God, I must repeat. If there were any evidence at all, Christianity wouldn't be such a philosophical and ontological laughing stock.
ModestWR 1 month ago
@ModestWR how is Christianity a laughingstock? Evolution, which has never been observed and can never be observed above the micro level, (which means there's no proof) has had a far smaller positive impact on the world than Christianity.
studentofthegospel 1 month ago
@studentofthegospel it's a shame you think it can't be observed. Every respected theologist in the world (most of them anyway) has accepted evolution for fact. There is no vague suggestion or theory, it's as clear as that the earth is round. You might enjoy reading Dawkins book: "the greatest show on earth" to understand what the undeniable proof really is.
I could try and debate with you, but if you care about the truth, please read it and draw your conclusion.
Gulzt 1 month ago
@studentofthegospel Evolution has been observed. There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by 99.98% of biologists.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz That an exact percentage? 100% of scientists believed Aristotle's claim that the fly had four legs, until one of them thought for himself and checked. Your numbers don't impress me except with the duplicity and stupidity of the masses. I've looked at much of the supposed "proof" of evolution. It's fanciful garbage. The fossil record alone destroys the theory completely. Micro evolution has been observed... but a change in hair color does not a new organ make.
studentofthegospel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@studentofthegospel Exactly.People that actually fall for evolution are idiotic for not believing the bible when evolution sounds more of a fantasy than the bible.There is no way evolution can be believed. As I said before;Information can only come from an intelligent source, since it requires not only bits of data, but also the ability to decode and understand that data.Thus,living systems could not have arisen through genetic mistakes and must have been created to function as complete systems
SlaveOfCrist 4 weeks ago
Actually McGrath makes sense in what he says.
flamingredhed 3 months ago
Dawkins is asking questions which require very long answers that both exist and are held by intelligent theists. the problem with this interview is that Dawkins is allowed to ask all the questions that require intricate and long explanations to be satisfactory. with the short time allowed to answer each question, almost anything McGrath says will seem insufficient. its almost silly. they should each submit questions in written format and blog it somewhere, or else dedicate days for an interview
drumtilludrop610 4 months ago
Jesus in NOT coming again, unless he's jacking off!!!
BigFatHeretic 4 months ago
Would it be fair to say Christians adopt a faith, because they want to live beyond death, while Atheists accept death as final, but want to understand reality. The motivations are different, and both cannot be true. However, the answer to the more probable scenario lies in the rationality of the motivations.
axolotl5 4 months ago
@axolotl5 You make a fair point, but I don't think that truth can be sought or derived based on rationality of motivations. Truth is derived from evidence - at least, objective truth. An argument can be rational, but it can still be technically "untrue". I used to think that rationality was the key ingredient, but it's not - many truths in mathematics and science are inherently irrational or contradictory, but they are considered "true" due to mutually-buttressed evidence.
typicalmelburnian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 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
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that McGrath pretty much just talks in circles? When Dawkins makes what he calls a "good point" or an "important point", he then deftly side-steps said point and makes a vague and almost deliberately confusing statement as a way of smoothing over the disagreement. I find McGrath to be a pretty lousy defender of the faith he purports to have, really.
typicalmelburnian 4 months ago
@stevenut88 No. That is wrong. Most Christians do NOT believe the Bible to be 100% true. But we all here appreciate your attempt to join in with the discussion, it must be so hard for an, dare i say it, "intellect" such as yourself (y)
JSM44677 5 months ago
bottom line,if ur a christian then u belive the bible 2 be 100% true,,,then u belive in a talking snake in the garden of eden,and that makes u a fukin retarded moreon who need mental help
stevenut88 6 months ago
I couldn't watch the rest of this series after this video. The entire second half was just a blithering idiot preaching to me about nonsense. >_<
EdgePitSwing 6 months ago
this is a brilliant debate, I think people should at least respect Prof. McGrath's point of view as much as Prof. Dawkins does, neither of these individuals are pretending that their argument is much better than the other, they are both well-matched and both delivering a very good debate.
truthslap 6 months ago
'the point i wud want to make is this!' haha
jabu285 6 months ago
"I think you've raised some interesting points there. And the argument I'd like to make is this;" lol
mistasista1 6 months ago 11
@mistasista1 it's because Dawkins is asking the questions. If Mcgrath was asking, he would say the same thing as you've quoted
hello83558 2 months ago
@mistasista1 he's just being intellectually humble. give him a break.
drumtilludrop610 3 weeks ago
Mcrath, though obviously a nice guy, is as verbose and dillusioned as less intelligent believers.
rrdab1 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 7 months ago
The problem here is that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. This is his "thing", and it's what he hammers away at. He doesn't expand into psychology, philosophy, or cultural history. And I think both him and his Disciples would really benefit if he expanded his repertoire of sciences.
LordShivasServant 7 months ago
The realities of early Christianity & opposing groups are sidelined by churches, colleges, theologians, ministers etc. because it opens a whole new can of worms & the subject is too complex & in some cases destroys belief systems, most involved in this mess don't know or understand it. But it's precisely for that reason that the mess of Christianity & way too many denominations have evolved. The unifying zeal of political/religious leaders blended it all together to avoid complications.
asherasator 7 months ago
Earliest Christians didn't use the Torah & were against it bcus it was from a different alien cult: Pharisees. Thru time it all got grouped together & then the idea of "gods plan" evolved to explain the inconsistencies. The 3 main groups were: (1) Nazarenes/Essenes. (2) Saducees. (3) Pharisees. Each 1 had it's own religion & politics & all 3 were very different from each other. Moderns who call Jesus a Jew or act like he followed Torah basics are incorrect. He was completely against them.
asherasator 7 months ago
Greatest mistake of Christians & opposers is ignorance of historical facts. The Pharisees institutionalizing animal sacrifice canonizing Leviticus & Deuteronomy is a later development that became accepted as an original part of the religion or 'Gods plan'. It was not original & was only a political movement that had its own cult. Jesus was only restoring the religion to what it was. That's why the bible contradicts itself: Sacrifices=Torah, then later on unnecessary thru the prophets & NT.
asherasator 7 months ago
The 'Jesus died for sins ideas' or 'ultimate final sacrifice' are designed for a primitive society that had sacrificial beliefs & Jesus' concepts are to civilize & evolve them. Christianity portrayed as an outgrowth of Torah Judaism is incorrect. Christian ideals went against basics of Pharisee/Judaism, so it's not of that. An original Melkizedek bread & wine Priesthood was forced out of Jerusalem during the Macabeean revolt, that then brought in animal sacrifice priests under the Hasmoneans.
asherasator 7 months ago
Dang...made it to part 6 before butthurt atheists and butthurt Christians started ranting and bashing each other...we were so civil before this... :(
Grant692 7 months ago
So what Alister McGrath is saying here is, we need to take accounts written minimum of 30 years after Jesus, which has been heavily edited over 2000 years, relying on stupefied, uneducated, towns folk, who were already on the look out for a 'prophet' mentioned in the OT who were amazed by the most trivial event, and gave magical, superstitious, attributes to those events, and except them as facts?
Very nice man, but very poor way of excepting evidence.
BunWackettBuzzard 7 months ago
The point i would like to make would be this... McGrath seems to me to talk in such an overly complicated way so as to avoid answering any of the question's that Dawkins asks.
LuffyDragonMonkey 8 months ago 21
@LuffyDragonMonkey yup, its called sophistry. Philo Judaeus called the fathers of the church "the sophists of literalness'.
PAULOcbi 6 months ago
@LuffyDragonMonkey If you think it sounds complicated you clearly aren't listening well enough.
dujl 5 months ago
@dujl I understand what hes saying thank you very much. My point was that he could say it all in a much simpler way but he chooses not to, it's a trait of religious people to try to sound as complex as they can. Richard Dawkins doesn't do that, in fact he goes out of his way to simplify what hes saying, that's why you often see him pausing. He is thinking of how to put across his words in as simple a way as possible so that there are no misunderstandings.
LuffyDragonMonkey 5 months ago
@LuffyDragonMonkey I would also prefer to put things simply, but sometimes there are nuances to an idea, that you would not want to spoil.
dujl 5 months ago
@dujl "dodge, duck, and weave" All the nuance in four words.
adolthitler 5 months ago in playlist Atheism, Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, etc.
@LuffyDragonMonkey Yes, and Dawkins likes him so he allows him to dodge the questions.
lewisner 5 months ago
@LuffyDragonMonkey Sounds like you're just whinging at McGrath's vocabulary. He's answering the questions. Try reading a dictionary.
xmoopzx 4 months ago
@LuffyDragonMonkey It's funny, I don't even think it's avoidance for Dawkins sake, it's more avoidance for his own sake. And although he over uses a few phrases, he speaks well in all I think. It's more his arguments that suck, not his tone haha.
Orkiperson 4 months ago
@LuffyDragonMonkey Yeah, my dog did not understand this either.. I guess his IQ is too low lol
WSSIIWarlordII 2 months ago
It's a good thing that this sad man with his guilty eyes came up against the gentlemanly Prof Dawkins.
10 Minutes with Christopher Hitchens would reduce him to a quivering jelly
CobinRain 8 months ago
@CobinRain Indeed.
WHIREAS 8 months ago
Comment removed
Pinkers28 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha, there's not much that's gentlemanly to be found in 'the God delusion'. Please note the appropriate place to use 'Christopher Hitchens' and 'quivering jelly' in the same sentence is in reference to Hitchens debate with William Lane Craig....if you can call it a debate when one of the participants fails to raise a single point of any merit. No wonder Dawkins is running scared from WLC.
Pinkers28 8 months ago
Why the hell is McGrath's neck constantly posed at a 45% angle?
rpsmith014 8 months ago 2
@rpsmith014 lol
RaytownSoClassof2010 8 months ago
Comment removed
rpsmith014 8 months ago
So McGrath brings up the point, 'You (Dawkins) would obviously want to investigate the reliability of the life of Christ, but once you read through the New Testement, you'll be so convinced by the accounts of witnesses that you won't need evidence'. Let me just say, McGrath, what a TERRIBLE FUCKING ARGUMENT. The main reason you say you're 'convinced' by 2,000 year old people's account is because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. The son of GOD didn't leave us a damn thing. McGrath-->FAIL
RiseMyChildren 9 months ago
real philosopher!!! what a bad man to argue with !!!
esraretin 9 months ago
@ChowMeinChowdown You obviously have not studied much on God and His pwer which by the way is INFINITE. And I pay attention to this stuff because I need to study on how to witness to the unbeliever. and by the way you are never gonna disprove God. So go back to your theories with shaky foundation and maybe one day you will realize the Truth. Lord Bless.
CloverfieldMonster95 9 months ago
@anlangnixon lolz at the overly-analytical blind man who thinks that the universe can spontaneously erupt from nothing. wow. just wow.
CloverfieldMonster95 10 months ago
@CloverfieldMonster95 How about the little one who believes in a deity who can simultaneously be His own son, and for whom we have zero empirically testable evidence in favour of? Go on, it's about time u recited a prayer or this deity (who is constantly watching u!) might be getting a little jealous at the amount of attention u seem to heap on an apparently unreasonable professor of biology attempting to disprove Him.
ChowMeinChowdown 9 months ago
The best explanation for that mad idea of resurrection is a historical one. The idea of a messiah is a jewish one. Jews expected the messiah to be a great figure, someone who destroys the enemy (the romans) But was Jesus such a figure? Not at all, he got squashed by the enemy and so his followers had realy a hard time to convince the world, that Jesus was the messiah, so they invented nice storys about Jesus.
balouthewatz 10 months ago
@balouthewatz Hey, I really like that idea! I never think about that much, but that seems to make sense! Ha! Of course, once finding an idea one really likes, one must use one's critical thinking skills and do one's own damn research before one accepts it. Being a critical thinker is so tiring!
This reaction brought to you by: Booze and boredom.
DoctorNociceptor 10 months ago
@DoctorNociceptor Its not my idea. I think that view is a main view among historians. At least the new testament historian bart ehrman has this view ...
balouthewatz 10 months ago
LMFAO @ 2:12 Dawkins: "Shi****....forget I ever said Jesus wasn't around..uhm. Original Sin. What sense does that make?"
LOLOLOLOLOL
THEGLASSOFMILK2 10 months ago
Dawkins is truly blind. You have just to pray for him. He struggles to understand with his ant-like brain but just can't see it.. Sin is the barrier for an atheist to truly understand God. Atheist!, repent of your sins and you will see God.
TheCyclingsaint 10 months ago
@TheCyclingsaint
Take a reli-hike, preaching dumbass
sonykroket 10 months ago
of course by acknowledging arguments for the existence of God you've made a choice of rejecting them and therefore MADE the choice to be an atheist. atheism is of course a choice, and while it may seem more logical to you it doesn't to the majority of mankind on the planet, learned or not.
jordoanderson1990 10 months ago
The thing I like most about Dawkins' manner in these conversations and debates is his politeness. He obviously has no respect for the beliefs of others, as well he shouldn't, but he only ever attacks the idea and not the person. I think this is the best way to proceed in these situations, even if you've no hope of winning anyone over, as it were.
Flowerblood 11 months ago
Well Dawkins views about jesus do not coincide with what I understand Jesus to be. So I think his views of this religion are twisted by his own personal opinions.
TheBbg83 11 months ago
@TheBbg83 You will find just as many Christians who disagree with your understanding of Jesus. Are their views on religion twisted by their own personal opinions too? How do you know you have it right and Dawkins and all of these other people got it wrong? What if it is you who is doing the twisting?
alangnixon 10 months ago
Why are people paying so much attention to the tilting of Mcgrath's head? Who cares, really?
ERArocker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ERArocker: "Why are people paying so much attention to the tilting of Mcgrath's head? Who cares, really?"
LOL that's because it usually shows people have a trained act or are lying
sonykroket 10 months ago
IDEAR... lol dawkins4life!
beyonddeadstudio 11 months ago
If i were in richard dawkins shoes i could tear mgrath a new one. . Richard is being nice .
1robon 11 months ago
the funny thing is so called christians spent years killing each other
greggcaff 11 months ago
@greggcaff Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war...Homer (the Greek guy, not the bald guy from Springfield)
equitemcroce 11 months ago
Alistair made sense until he started going on how god existed even though is didn't matter whether or not there was proof for his existence.
4est242 1 year ago
I didn't hear McGrath answer a point yet.
Are they having the same conversation?
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp That's what theists always do. They make logical sounding points but can never answer a question stright, like why are there natural disasters and viral infections when god is so loving. If they could, they would answer straightly that why in the first place god created a non-perfect universe, and why jesus failed to fix it either. They didn't answer when I started to doubt my faith but yet truly wanted clear answers. Thus they could not keep me in the herd.
xwlr 1 year ago
Yes, something of decisive importance did happen, which transformed their lives. And when Mohammad convinced others of the truth of his statements, something of decisive importance happened which transformed those lives. And when Buddha spoke, he also transformed people's lives. So how can honest seekers choose which of these men told the truth?
Perhaps none of them told the truth. Not in their essential doctrinal differences, at least.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
Oh, McGrath is not making much headway speaking of the historicity of the New Testament. Not going good for him and his view in reference to that.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
one person would rather stay ignorant.
gacktxrawr 1 year ago
@allibyx No, it was commented but not disproven. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
Comment removed
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
I keep wanting to stop watching these videos and go to bed, but they are so intriguing, that each time one ends, I must listen to the next one.
ChillinWithMcMillian 1 year ago
Dawkins has made a religion out of atheism. He believes in the soul. Try this video: Daniel Dennett - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews at 3:50 Dawkins say: "a soul can emerge from soulless neurons "; that is theology at it's worst. The neo-Lamarkism selfish gene theory requires a leap of Faith bigger the Holy Trinity. I though atheists were on the evidence required side of the fence if you want to come to the Faith side please do it through the front door. Accept God. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I cannot look any longer at this guy's neck, ... he must be hearting...
HentVanTuut 1 year ago
I cannot look at this guy's neck... he must be hurting....
HentVanTuut 1 year ago
Going by McGrath's logic - in about a 50 or so years Steve Jobs would replace
jesus :)
shishirpandey42 1 year ago
In conclusion the guy doesn't really know why he is a Christian. It's as simple as he wants comfort in knowing he will be going somewhere when he dies. Instead of wasting Dawkins time he should just say, "Well it's in the bible so it must be true" and then Dawkins can go about his business.
charvelgtrs 1 year ago
I have no problem with people believing in an unknowing God, it's just when they have to add religion in the picture that things start going downhill. The stories in the bible really makes God into a weak imperfect individual. If there really is a God I'm pretty sure it's not some jealous person in the sky judging everything we do.
charvelgtrs 1 year ago
Dawkins should have stuck with physical science, even though it doesn't really stand up against metaphysics.
The last thing an atheist wants to do is say; "well let's just assume Jesus was the Son of God..."
Is he kidding? 2,000 years of Christian theology is against him.
jgillevet 1 year ago
Alright Dawkins Wins FATALITY! too bad it looked good at first.
Makazi 1 year ago
wow he got completely owned.. this is terrible
symnzXx 1 year ago
Interesting how Dawkin's avoids pressing McGrath's (professor of historical theology) point on the historicity of Jesus Christ with a shotgun blast of questions he finds difficult to answer.
Both are doing well in answering the questions from their respective worldviews.
chocolate777 1 year ago
Still interesting theologically.. But starting to get mmehh in other aspects.
GeeZone777 1 year ago
So pathetic. Dawkins asks valid questions and McGrath blapthers on with rehearsed responses that don't even address the original questions. McGrath has talking points that he seems to launch into when he hears key words from Dawkins questions. It's part answer and part preaching. All Dawkins did with this series is expose another Theist who cannot answer the most basic of questions.
crito30 1 year ago
Jesus had schizophrenia and was intellgent in human persausion medicine and philosophy
arcaniondeath666 1 year ago
mcgrath never answers the questions! because he knows he can't answer it!!
maykomarquez 1 year ago
@maykomarquez, I think he does, he seems to answer them quite well actually, btw, notice who's asking the all the questions, I'm sure if it was the other way round then it would be a different story
andrew1191 1 year ago
dude i don't think he was atheist because he didn't know why he didn't believe in god... he just wants the fame of an atheist gone christian... which would be unlikely to happen if the atheist really knows why he doesn't believe
maykomarquez 1 year ago
Wait wait wait... Jesus actually died and resurrect?
Hmm... I wonder if that is possible. If it is, what would it be like to die....
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
I just can't understand McGrath. I think he needs subtitles.
asdashopperrr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@woodydrn2 : this is strange ... today I happened to watch Noam Chomsky on WF Buckley's show in 1971, and similarly in that case the person with whom I disagree (buckley) spends the entire conversation with his head on a 45 degree angle. Chomsky and Dawkins both keep their heads upright. What does it mean?
ge055rey 1 year ago
@woodydrn2 : this is strange ... today I happened to watch Noam Chomsky on WF Buckley's show in 1971, and similarly in that case the person with whom I disagree (buckley) spends the entire conversation with his head on a 45 degree angle. Chomsky and Dawkins both keep their heads upright. What does it mean?
ge055rey 1 year ago
Okay after watching about five debates between Dawkins and religious people I was hoping this one would stump him in the slightest, but it hasn't. So far at least.
clay10h 1 year ago
How does an atheist explain this? Why should we be in such a violent reaction against the reality we're apart of? How do nonliving things come together without a directed process and gain the ability to say "I" and "me" and know that something is wrong with what they perceive to be reality? Conundrum at it's best! Lewis saw this.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
C.S. Lewis "What is the problem? A universe that contains much that is bad and apparently meaningless, but containing creatures like ourselves who know that it is bad and apparently meaningless. The only view that faces these facts is Christianity in that this is a good world gone wrong yet still retains the memory of what it ought to have been.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
Jesus did he exist?
of course it needs to be interrogated?
evidence is very thin to put it mildly?
"you've raised some interesting questions there.." how many times is Alistair going tom say that. He suddenly goes all churchy like a bloody sermon...
tubalooney 1 year ago
@tubalooney Yeah, he starts talking about Christianity and shit! Who said that was allowed in a debate about Christianity?
grandampersand 1 year ago
Jesus did he exist?
of course it needs to be interrogated?
evidence is very thin to put it mildly?
tubalooney 1 year ago
alister seems to be fully aware of the weaknesses of his points since hes avoiding answering them and moving the goal posts as richard keeps pushing him back and back after everything he says. I reckon he either is just in a state of denial or that he actually is an athiest but there is too much pressure and debating is part of his job and hed have to stop if he openly admitted it.
PooeyBum11 1 year ago
after viewing 6 parts of this, Alister is really starting to annoy me...the tilt of his head and awkward prose and mediocre responses starting with "well, you've raised quite an interesting question..." he almost seems to concede then marches on in usual religious fashion with poetic, metaphysical ideological "reason". I don't buy for one second his stature as being a sophisticated theologian. The root of the ideas and dogmas are all the same. No matter how you wiggle about in them...
soadfan 1 year ago
There are some complex issues that Dawkins raises. To be honest, I struggled years to understand them. But I feel I do. I certainly cannot answer them in 400 characters or less. But the keys I found to understanding them were found in free will (which all Christians don't accept), God existing outside time (he isn't bound to time like we are), and love (if my wife were condemned, I wouldn't worry about what is fair, I would worry about how I could save her). Obviously too deep for 400 chars
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 an omnicient all powerful god actually defeats the whole idea of free will. He set into motion everything that would result in the things that influence people and ultimately result in the decisions they make while knowing the future. The arguement for free will is actually an arguement against an omnicient god so i doubt your explanation isnt as good as you think it is even if you didnt have to worry about a word count.
PooeyBum11 1 year ago
@PooeyBum11
"an omnicient all powerful god actually defeats the whole idea of free will."
An all powerful God is incapable of creating free will? That's absurd. God's omnicient and power are so amazing that he can always accomplish his will even when he doesn't have to control it. I have heard it said that God can take any set of circumstances, throw them in a bag, shake them up, and pull out his perfect will. Smart minds can't grasp that. It makes perfect sense to little mind like mine.
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 The free will argument is actually a paradox. If God is omniscient and knows the future then he knows what our "free will" will decide. If there is knowledge of our actions by any being before we make them, then it is a predetermined outcome, which negates free will. The idea of prophecies is an example, if end times are already determined then the actions of the people within those prophecies are also determined, which contradicts free will and iindividual choice
MrSchnuffs 1 year ago
@MrSchnuffs
God is not bound to our conception of time. Someone once said that time is what God gives us so that everything doesn't all happen at once. We need time. God does not. Even Einstein taught us that we don't have a perfect handle on this time thing.
Anyway, would it be possible to foreknow something that I did not determine? Of course there is. I could give scores of examples of things I know will happen in the future that I will not determine.
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 That God doesn't exist in time doesn't answer the paradox, and is just a conjecture anyway, there's no reason to believe that God ins't constrained by time just like we are, all powerful or not. Besides free will is dependant on a timeline, if everything happened at once there would be no chance to decide anything.
Oh, and not knowing everything about time does not negate it, it simply means we only know certain things about it but we still act accordingly to what we do know
MrSchnuffs 1 year ago
@MrSchnuffs
Is Santa Clause constrained by time?
Have you ever flinched?
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 Saying I've flinched before doesn't answer anything as it is entirely concievable, at least in a theistic sense, that God could stop me from flinching. That is if the premise that he is all powerful is true. And I'm not sure about the Santa Clause thing, that's kind of a non-sequiter
MrSchnuffs 1 year ago
@MrSchnuffs
I'll just let you think about it. Maybe you will get it. Maybe not.
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 Futhermore foreknowing certain events, and knowledge of cause and effect are dependant upon the laws of nature being uniform and never changing. If God and anypoint intercedes and changes these principles then you cannot know for certain that these things will happen. For example, God could intercede in any of these examples you could create and allow things not to happen as you would anticipate
MrSchnuffs 1 year ago
@muncyj123 if there was an omnicient all powerful God then how could there be free will? Omniscient means all knowing....therefore God would know all of your decisions before you make them. If God knows what you're going to do before it happens then how is that free will? one obviously can't do something other than what God already knows because then they would be proving God wrong.
ballerKMH2 1 year ago
@ballerKMH2
You are assuming that God is bound by our conception of time. He is not.
Didn't Einstein teach us not to think we have this whole time thing figured out?
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 I am not assuming that he is bound by anything.but it is clear that WE are bound by some conception of time. Therefore if God knows what I will do before I have made a conscious decision and am actually percieved doing it. How do I have free will?
ballerKMH2 1 year ago
@ballerKMH2
Have you ever flinched?
muncyj123 1 year ago
@muncyj123 yes I have flinched before. And if God knew beforehand I was going to flinch then I had no choice but to flinch lol. I'm not arguing that there are actions that our conscious minds don't control, I am saying that if God KNOWS about these actions ahead of time, then I do not have a choice on whether or not to actually do them when the time comes. And if I did have a choice that God was unaware of, then he would not be omniscient.
ballerKMH2 1 year ago
@ballerKMH2 you're a bloody idiot.
dbfydtn 1 year ago
@dbfydtn how so? Explain how I can have free will if God is omniscient.
ballerKMH2 1 year ago
its funny that in the first video, the comments were all praising both of them, but later on everyone realised that McGrath is a complete bullshitter.
BucketTard 1 year ago
@BucketTard Yeah, the points he was making at least had some consistency, I think this was because they were arguing more in the science side of the matter, but the second the discussion turned to religion Alister started rambling, and this is what you see now. Too bad..
DaGavinX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "Primary reason" he believes in God is the same for all believer: the expectation to collect dividends in the form of a wonderful afterlife for dedicating ALL of their credulism to a single intelligent creator.
Skepgnostic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "Primary reason" he believes in God is the same for all believer: the expectation to collect dividends in the form of a wonderful afterlife for dedicating ALL of their credulism to a single intelligent creator.
Skepgnostic 1 year ago
Comment removed
Skepgnostic 1 year ago
The brain, is so complex. Isn't truth simply truth? Why is that so hard for some to believe? I wonder.
JayDee98765 1 year ago
what a fucking lie "I was an Atheist"
this is a greedy stupid christian(from birth) politician
who rides the success of a great man like Dawkins!!!
dboyzumik1 1 year ago
Hmmm I'm just wondering whether I should bother watching the rest of this.. McGrath just rambles on in his own world without ever addressing any of the points raised. Also, has someone attached a heavy weight to his right ear?
FearsomeGibbonofDoom 1 year ago 26
@FearsomeGibbonofDoom Dawkins points are so undeniably correct, that the stress caused has tensed up one of McGraths neck muscles. Kidding, who knows.
JayDee98765 1 year ago
Comment removed
puddlejumper50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FearsomeGibbonofDoom
"McGrath just rambles on in his own world without ever addressing any of the points raised. Also, has someone attached a heavy weight to his right ear?"
Yes, it's the weight of god on his mind.
puddlejumper50 1 year ago 2
@FearsomeGibbonofDoom people tend to put their head to one side, when they are trying making a point, and they will shift their heads to the other side - when making the opposite point - and as you see here, McGrath only has one side.
woodydrn2 1 year ago 27
What an iron clad argument.
PistisIasis 1 year ago
And since Dawkins rarely, if ever, tilts his head then he is making no point. Right?
PistisIasis 1 year ago
@PistisIasis if you look carefully, Dawkins DO tilt his head too.... But since McGrath is QUITE OBVIOUS with this, I pointed it out...
woodydrn2 1 year ago
I was pointing out that what you are saying is a red-herring and I believe that seems to be the strongest argument that the Neo-Atheists can dream up. Get away from Dawkins and read a real Philosopher like Nietzsche if you feel that you must be an atheist.
PistisIasis 1 year ago
@PistisIasis Tilting his head has nothing to do with philosophy... and I did read Nietzsche.
woodydrn2 1 year ago
@PistisIasis "Get away from Dawkins and read a real Philosopher like Nietzsche if you feel that you must be an atheist."
What the heck ... "must be an atheist" ... that's not a choice. I've yet to see a scrap of evidence supporting the existence of a god. If anyone has anything convincing, please let me know. Atheism is no choice I've made, I just don't go around believing things there is no evidence for, and the reasons I see others doing it are virtually always exceedingly poor ones.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago 33