Rabbi Shmuley Debates Richard Dawkins - Part 8

www.Shmuley.com to purchase full video.
The 1996 debate at Oxford featuring four eminent participants, including noted biblical scholar Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

The panelists tackle the issue of whether or not God, and by extension, religion, is needed for there to be goodness in the world. Rabbi Boteach boldly asserts that the greatest tragedies of the 20th century were not only removed from religious motivations, but were responsible for more casualties than religious wars in all other times put together.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• shmuley
• boteach
• dawkins
• atheist
• judaism
• debate

[RPFS2008]

Why would a God have to be "beautiful" "good" etc etc. ?

Why would a God create other lesser beings?

On the other hand, why is there a reality? (this question could drive a person mad)

[uraniumgrenade]

You guys give atheists a bad name. You take the view 'Oh well this guys old and I don't agree with his views, therefore I can't be fucked to listen.' I am an atheist, but I do not take such a pathetically narrow minded view, I actually listened, and discovered he makes many very insightful points.

[waiotahi52]

Would it have been kosher if he told the Jewish guy that as there is no God,God could not have promised them Palestine and they should get the hell out of there?

[MrDavidFitzgerald]

Yet again no one answers the question: what decides which parts of the bible we do or do not use in modern life?

[DaGavinX]

"Were here by accident?" -typical theist strawman.

Also he made no good points, except some kind of list of things believers should do or think; proving the atheists point that the religious can't think rationally by themselves.

[borderlinebuddhist]

lol he said objective and theist in the same sentence.

[queenastilon]

I listened carefully to this guy, despite his extremely dull delivery. He had some interesting definitions that are not anyone else's definitions of the same things - none that I've heard anyway.

He did indeed seem to be rambling on and on but that was just due to his boring manner. Dawkins is quiet and self-effacing but his points are clear and he doesn't ramble on.

[TheGreatToopi]

I would offer that the reason this debate has gone so far is only due to the generation of the speakers and is most likely non-reflective of the population they address. I would surmise the zeal in defending the idea of God will only diminish as we move past his generation.

[lewisner]

I disagree. He is an eloquent and persuasive speaker just as the disgraced American evangelists Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind were.Their arguments were false.

[Gplex]

You can dress up a bullshit, so it can look like a proper argument, like this guy does. But it will only fool those who are ignorant of the topic he is talking about.

[PorkScratchins101]

This guy is clearly an Anglican clone from the planet Britain, member for the State religious federation for covert moral imposition.

Its all about trying to appear to have a practical use for them!