Richard Dawkins schools Howard Conder on morality

From his interview on Revelation tv with Howard Conder. Watch how he totally owns this guy and teaches him what the bible is supposed to teach us.

Full interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfe4IU...

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[Born AfterTV]

Pretty sure thats code for...."Oh shit, i'm getting fucked over" lol

[Roberto Ramirez]

That's a very good question...

[philstephes]

if Adam hid from god, then god isn't omniscient.

[David Roy]

Conder's got nuthin... nuthin'!!

[Fattboy26]

It really is so pathetic when grown intelligent people believe in such utter shit.

[chinopisces]

Theists are sick in the head. Conder is a perfect example of this.

[kip ray]

everyone knows a christian. notice how they are always kinda wack........wtf up with that anyways. cant any of you guys just be normal

[Ohubblington]

Firstly, he wouldn't have watched his son be killed. Because he would be Omnipotent, he engineered the death of his own son. As Dawkins points out, human sacrifice is not the obvious way to forgive humanity, especially when you can pick literally anything.

To tackle your examples: In none of the cases you describe is a bystander forced to accept the sacrifice under threat of hell. Secondly in these cases, we're dealing in tangible human lives versus intangible forgiveness by a specific god.

[eschelar]

You failed to make any sense in this post.

Yes, it does make sense that God loves us so much he'd watch his son be killed by others as a ransom sacrifice... WITHIN the Bible's own theology.

Have you read A Tale of Two Cities? A man gives his life for others there too. Or perhaps you only watch movies. How about Gladiator? Braveheart? Too fictional?

How about war? Does it make sense that a government would send soldiers to die to protect people/land/whatever?

You can't ignore context.

[eschelar]

See, here you are confusing what is legal with what is moral.

Furthermore, there are only a handful of laws that are in the Bible that are 'extraordinary' to our modern standards and these are given prominence by overzealous opponents. Few of them are unconstitutional.

And it's more than a little pompous to assume that the Constitution of the US is a standard by which all other should be judged as far as what is moral. Or even legal for that matter. Other groups have other ideas too.