Dawkins on religion

Here is the interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jN4KmDCKKE&feature=rec-fresh

The book I refer to is "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• religion
• morals
• faith
• atheist
• atheism
• Christian
• Christianity
• Jesus
• Bible
• interview

[martynblackburn1977]

Dawkins understood the mistranslation of Isaiah, so I guess he is not as ignorant as most Christians are.

[bodid50]

Dawkins should stick to what he knows, science.

[theOvin2]

Are we all supposed to ignore the fact that the last question wasn't directed toward Christianity exclusively. Pretty sure the question was "People who believe, believe they get their moral values from religion... Where do atheists get their morals?" Where do you see Christianity in that question? Also even if it pertained only to the old testament laws, and no longer to Christians, how come Jews don't stone people?

[bodid50]

Look at the last minute of the clip. Dawkins says that Christians pick and choose what we follow based on what we decide to follow. He doesn't even realize that we are not under old laws.

[NemoUtopian]

how do you get "Jesus probably did not exist" out of Dawkins saying"he almost certainly did"?sadly the rest of your video shows that your reasoning is on par with your listening comprehension,and reading comprehension for that matter,you printed out the statement in text form to boot!

[bodid50]

I see now. I should have said that Dawkins said he "may not have existed". You're right there. My bad.

[DarkEmergence]

@bodid50 Christians pick and choose from the new laws as well.

[UprisingOfTheYawn]

you cannot use the bible as historical referance. 

[laserpig]

Dawkins is ignorant about the details of your religion because they are arbitrary and ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps he'd do better to speak with a little more academic humility in areas outside his expertise, but his central point about faith remains valid. To make a virtue out of believing something because you believe believing it to be a virtue is blatantly circular. Living your life based on a logic that faulty is not only foolish but destructive.

[DrDvids]

I couldn't finish watching this video. Coming from someone who just finished reading the book, "I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist," I took the time to look up the rebuttal (like I always do for anything I'm researching) and that fact lies that all of those proofs do little to merit if jesus had existed. I will offer the benifit of the doubt that maybe he did, however, to claim the biblical story to be accurate is beyond any proof.

[Steinap]

Dawkins says that he believe Jesus existed, there is lots of evidence of Jesus. But there is more evidence of Julius Caesar.

[dimebagjimmy]

The maker of this video is the intellectual equivalent of a keyboard warrior.

Basically people can bitch about morals from religion etc untill the sun goes down........man is a glorified ape, natural selection is correct, this planet is not 6000 years old. So argue all you like and if believing in your god helps you sleep at night then so be it.

[pmacgilli]

I watched your video in which you pose two questions to atheists and believed you to be an intelligent and thoughtful young man. Enough in fact to watch what you have done since then. However, given that you received so many excellent answers to that video, did not respond to any of them and then proceeded to make more videos of the same kind I judge you to be disingenuous at best.

[magua73]

fukeweup asked "but where do morals come from? "

I wrote "and some are universal which are those that arouse naturally as an emergent property of group social behavior. "

Then I ask "Why do you ask about morals when I already gave you an answer?"

You seem to make morality as a kind of "hokus pokus" thing and is not, it is well understood process in evolutionary psychology. Studies among primates have thrown some light into it too, and even economics.

[Uxoriouswidow]

Dawkins considers it no more probable than you do, and if you'd properly ever heard him talk on the matter you'd know that.

My point remains unanswered - what exactly has Dawkins incorrectly surmised? It's all well and good to say that he is 'uninformed' about scripture, it's another (far more intellectually relevant) thing to point out examples of such ignorance.

[fukeweup]

his proof is simple, he is showing how the man is very much uneducated in the Hebrew and new testament God, and he is not incorrect- there are billions of videos showing his errors in debating Christian sects, but we all don't know everything, agreed? Just like I don't know about alien life forms planting their sperm on the earths surface, and them having to be produced the same way as being a viable hypotheses to the origin of life-my opinion.scares me to think dawkins considers it probable