I don't care what you believe in, as long as it is of no detriment to other human beings. I care what people believe in when it does cause grief to others. Homophobia is advocated in Leviticus, so I have an issue with Christianity as a result. Regardless of the fact that I think it's bonkers, I don't mind if you believe in a God.

It's the same with Islam. I don't mind if they believe in Allah, but if Allah advocates halal slaughter, which is horrible by the way, or the ill treatment of women, I have a problem with it. Although I do agree with the idea of cultural relativism somewhat, I can't sit back and say "Oh well, if thats what they do, that's what they do" when people or animals are suffering as a result.

This guy in the video is just as much an idiot as you. Dawkins doesn't 'approve' of pedophilia. Do your research because I'm not doing it for you.

If someone told you that they believe unicorns are the ultimate cause of the universe, I imagine you wouldn't be too keen to accept that without debate. Your argument is invalid.

It's better for the environment (debatable when GM comes into play) and it's better for your health as there isn't loads of shite sprayed all over the crops.

Whether he was molested by a pedophile or not has nothing to do with atheism. Dawkins didn't invent atheism.

We are as much products of nature as we are nurture. A large part of our psyche is both created through genetics as well as culture, customs, our parents etc.

I think we are born with a specific mindset created by our unique genetics, which is then shaped and moulded by life's experiences and thoughts.

You don't get anything but death because God isn't real. If Hell is real then why should I be burning in it? A) I'm not dead. B) Hell doesn't exist.

Your argument is non-existent, let alone not concise. What are you even arguing for?

It's not about what anyone 'gets out of atheism'. There are no benefits or drawbacks from being an atheist, that's the whole point. Being an atheist is just acknowledging that the scientific method produces evidence. God cannot be tested for via the scientific method, therefore he doesn't exist.

When you talk about life having God-given 'meaning' you are simply eluding yourself. I'm not saying life is meaningless as such, more that in the grand scheme of the universe human existence is merely a blip. That doesn't mean that you can't have personal meaning, and by all means make that God. All I'm saying is, through rational thought it doesn't make sense that a God exists. I realise there are many unexplained phenomena in our universe, but I'm not advocating that they leave a God shaped hole. I believe that the universe, whether sooner or later, can be explained through logical argument and scientific evidence.

Again, I acknowledge that there is pain and suffering in the world that we are subject to, however I don't expect a God to make things better or be responsible for this suffering. It is merely the workings of the universe. Nature is both beautiful and disgusting.

I agree that anyone could put the effort in to become a professor, but how can they be a fool if they did put the effort in? Richard Dawkins is not a fool just because you don't agree with what he says. I agree he may be confrontational in his approach to Christianity, but his aim is not to belittle Christianity but to urge people to think differently and realise that scientific evidence is the best way to discover truths about our universe.

huge sigh

What the heck are you on about you sad, abominable, grotesque excuse for an ethical human?...

I feel that it is an abomination against humanity. People who think that these passages are right shouldn't be allowed to walk streets.

Oh really, stick to Bible commentary? That seems like a great idea. Why don't we all just suppress women, approve of slavery and condemn homosexuals by burning them. What world do you want to live in you sick man?

Where is your evidence for your statements? Who's denying their shame? How do you know they're convincing themselves they're normal? How can you convince me that you're normal?

Your analogy with a dirty nappy is the most unrelated drivel i've set my eyes on. What are you trying to prove?

The unanswerable question is when does a life begin. People debate between whether it's from conception, from birth, the moment it look human-like and many more. I, personally, can't really decide because at the end of the day its still a life that won't be able to be lived.

I can understand that if a man finds me attractive because he's gay. However, you seem to think that because he's gay I ultimately have to turn into a gay person. You, sir, are wrong. If a man and another man want to have their own relationship I couldn't care less. If they forced me to have anal sex with them then I would think it is wrong but not because they're gay but because they're breaching my consent.

Gay or straight, if another person loves another for who they are there is no problem. If God says that there is a problem with that, then God is a terrible being.

Homosexuals don't think they're defiling their bodies, so why do you think that your position is any more valid? If God is your answer then there is no refuting you, as God can sustain all argument. That is where you have won. You can use God all you want as your medium for argument. As long as you know him to be true then you cannot lose. I came to realise this way before this moment, but I have decided to stand down.

Let me give you an example of your logic. If I believe in a fairy, say, and that Fairy can do and know absolutely everything, without being seen, noticed or measured in any way, then I could say that whatever happens is a result of this Fairy. You can't disprove me because I believe in this fairy and therefore you lose.

Oh, what's this? There's a book? Is this the Fairy's book? Well, I'm going to presume it is the Fairy's book because it says it is. It says in this book that you are below cats in the Fairy's hierarchy. You can't disprove me because the Fairy knows everything, so even if you say you aren't the Fairy says that you are.

See where I'm going with this? You to me sounds like me talking to you about the Fairy.

I don't believe in God so I have no-one to hate. If he has changed your life for good by making you degrade the lives of others, like homosexuals, rational thinkers and anyone other than your disposition, you are not a good person.

You are not evidence of the gospel being good, at all...

Do straight people choose to be straight? No.

Same thing goes for homosexuals.

Your unfounded argument is pathetic in my eyes. Your resort to hopeless slurs indicates to me that you're weak. Return to kneeling before Jesus and doing what you do best, kissing his righteous arse.

I am just using the term that Aristotle is said to have coined. I agree that the powerful have used their power for themselves in the past, however I am not saying that it isn't possible for someone to lead with their people in mind before themselves.

sigh

There is no other way for you is there? Who are you to say that one thing is idiotic or unacceptable? What if I told you that you are not the authority that you think you are?

I bet you're one of those people that thinks they 'expose lies' when they try and disprove science or intelligent people with flimsy evidence. Just because you think you've been granted dominion over other people by your bed-time buddy God, Jesus, Jehovah, or whatever name you wish, doesn't mean you do. Go read a philosophy book and get back to me. Fool.

Ahh, the rock argument. I'm an atheist to clarify, but this argument can be blown out of the water, no matter how appealing it may be. If by 'omnipotence' you mean being able to do anything, even the logically impossible, God can still lift the rock.

If God can do anything logically impossible, it means that he can do things that even contradict themselves. This may be incomprehensible, but if floors logically. It doesn't matter whether the rock is too heavy because he can still lift it, as he can do anything that is impossible.

If, however, you define omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible, within logic and non-contradiction, the argument still is invalid. If god can only do things that are possible he cannot make a rock that he can't lift, as it is impossible.

So, either way God still wins, annoyingly.

Why are you arguing with me over my concurrence with you?

I don't see how these 'blunders', if they are, infer that my thinking capabilities are hindered. The reason I used 'majority' and 'large proportion' was to reduce generality in my statement. If I had said that 'all' christians do something or other I run the risk of having someone complain. Much like saying that muslims are terrorists or black people steal stuff, there is going to be the other side of these people that say 'Oh, I'm a muslim/black person and I don't bomb/steal.' Sorry for my miscommunication.

Just be quiet, fool. According to you, God is real and none can prove it wrong. Anyone who tries to prove it wrong with sound argument, is wrong. Anyone who calls you out on this, is wrong. That is ultimately your logic isn't it?

Face it, you are someone who has nothing better to do than go on a decent website, where people want to go to have simple, sound argument, and spread your weak and cretinous views that are based on nothing but your mentally flimsy framework that has been perverted by Christian authority to embed the dumb regime you try to impose.

Keep believing in your fallacies if you want to live a pointless, fun-less and wasted life by trying to keep to it. You may call me stupid for saying so, but it is true to any sound-minded person.

Nothing you've said is logical. If you were logically inclined you would realise that what you are saying is fuelled by authority of the church and your own 'mental block' that has been engraved in your mind since your pathetic birth.

Perversion of the government is when the leaders of society, as you say, use their power for personal benefit. I don't think that intelligent people shouldn't be allowed to run society if they have the capability to do so effectively, yet I don't think they should use their power to fuel corrupt and unfair regimes for the greater good of themselves and rich companies on their side.

How can you say that Atheists have incompatible beliefs when there is so much hypocrisy and contradiction in the Bible? The problem with a majority of christians is that they fail to actually take the idea of God and try to rationalise his existence. The large proportion of christians just get told that there is a all-powerful, all good, all present God, and questioning that authority is a sin.

And for future reference, please support your argument that exploring Atheism leaves you feeling incompatible. You can't just state something and fail to back it up with evidence. Then again, I suppose that is Christianity at the end of the day...

Maybe the click of a mouse button represents our infinitesimally short time in the universe. So, yeah clicking a mouse does infer your life.

Although I am an atheist, your evidence is flimsy. Your proof that Jesus was gay came from the Bible and I'm sure that not much can be taken as fact from that book.

Well, I suppose the two fall under a different type of moral law. The situation involving drugs is different to that of a gun, because the person taking drugs is often the one consenting to it. However, in the gun's case, a person cannot consent to being shot when they do get shot.

I'm explaining and defending myself because your comments are similar to those of a mental case, who sits in a cell by himself, eating flies. You can't have any idea what I am outside the internet because you don't know me, do you? So how can you instantly presume that I am, indeed, a 'closet queer' or a homophobe? I could say that I think you are a lonely little man, who preaches to God everyday, hates everyone, gets social anxiety because no one wants to ever be next to you. Correct yourself, before you try to correct anyone else.

It was American heritage to have slavery. You wouldn't go back to having slavery, would you? Same principle for religion. Religion should go with the time and the moral decision made by the people, not from an ancient book where, at the time, it was okay to stone someone to death for apostasy.

I'm not going to go get a tattoo just because its acceptable to get one. Same principle with homosexuality; I'm not going to be homosexual just because I accept homosexuality as normal. Just because I accept that gay people should be treated with the same respect as you would anyone else, does not mean that I MYSELF ought to be homosexual.

Your God is the one who created gay people. He created them in his image. Therefore is God homosexual?

You have no idea about what you're talking about. Use facts please.

Children don't have the potential to be homosexual if they hang out with gay people, it just doesn't work like that. If a kid turns out to be homosexual it's because he is predestined to be homosexual because of his genes. Being around gay people may make this genetic disposition activate more quickly, however it should not 'make' the child homosexual.

Again, I am not a homophobe because of some bullshit that you make up. I couldn't care less if my children hung out with gay people because I know they wouldn't be gay unless they were predestined to be by a genetic disposition.

I have the brains to think things through. Rationality is the humans' most unprecedented function in the animal kingdom. Use it.

Even if it was legalised in the UK I still like it either way ;)

Okay, well give me a question that I can give my opinion for. This 'everything' question is ambiguous and I'm not sure what you are aiming to discover.

Can you stop chatting absolute drivel? I'm not 'trying' to be gay just because I think gay people should be treated with respect just as you would any other person. Gay does mean happy and I congratulate you on actually saying something factual, however I'm not happy because I am gay and therefore a sinner. I am happy because I love my life as I live it. You are probably an unhappy, lonely and callous person because of your 'loving God'.

Why don't you understand that not everyone thinks I'm the same, insane and narrow-minded way that you do? I can state with confidence that you are going to die a generally unhappy person by not living your life that you've got now instead of waiting for the one you have no idea whether you're going to get, which the only evidence for is in an ancient book.

I'm trying to reason with you so calling me a fool is hypocritical. A fool believes in a book and not reason. I am thinking more than you at the moment because I haven't been led to believe in nonsense.

I have thought about where I'm going after I die, probably more than you have. Nothing comes after death. I don't need to be who you want me to be because I believe that nothing will ensue after my death. If God wants to bump me off and teach me a lesson then I am going to let him do it right now. Hmm, I'm still alive so what are you going to do now? I have so much confidence in the fact that God doesn't exist because It simply is rational, realistic and abides by the laws of the universe.

Do you have any proof for what you say? How do YOU know that what it says in a BOOK is what is true? You need to ask yourself these questions before you start slandering people with fallacy. You say that I need to think but have you actually THOUGHT about what you have been lead to believe rationally?

Can you actually give me an answer to my whole passage above? Or was it too complicated for you? Changing the topic and not responding to my argument does not give you the high ground it makes me think that you have nothing valid to say, with regard to the same old twaddle that you normally comment in response to people like you just have to me.

Your argument is baseless and completely made up. I mean, what sane person would say anything like 'only going round in circles with one foot stuck in the grave and the other sliding around in circles on thin ice which is melting over the fire of Hell'? You're lucky that Christianity's been round for ages because people have gotten used to the rubbish that comes out of your mouth.

This really comes down to either the teleological or deontological approach. From a teleological point of view you would kill the one person, as the total amount of happiness at the end outweighs that of the other approach of sparing the person. From a deontological perspective, even if the hundred people die, you are not in the moral wrong, as you have not directly killed anyone. Whatever way the hundred people are killed is not an issue if it is not by your hand but the one who performs it, even if you are able to stop them.

Making the choice between the two approaches is the difficult part.

So these 'lists', are they what defines a person as everything or is it that I would have a list of what everyone else is?

And why would it be that, using the example you used, The Terminator is an aspect of someone's list, yet it doesn't relate to them on a human basis? Apart from the fact that they may have watched the film, which many others probably have, why is it that that person uses it and not someone else?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the point of the question. Can you give me an example that illustrates your point? Cheers.

I agree with your point on value of life. However, value may be considered the benefit that it gives from a human point of view. A dog has more useful than a fly for a human so the dog is therefore more valuable to us.

Is it wrong to value lives in different ways or is it just the natural way we think about things having worth? Should we ought to give all life the same rights as we would to another human or is it simply not possible?

Hmm, I'm still not quite sure what you mean by 'everything'. Is it that because we are all humans, regardless of origin, as a species then we are considered 'everything' of the human race? That is all I can interpret from your comment.

So you're saying that a human's moral obligation is to regard all life as equal or are you saying that because we DO regard all life as equal we are therefore superior to the animals that don't?

I suppose that because we are rational beings, unlike all other life on Earth, it makes us more superior in terms of awareness and a non-instinctive nature. However, it does not make us more superior in terms of a worthiness of life. Just because we are sentient beings does not give us more worth from a natural point of view. Although, even though I say this, I would rather kill a fly than a horse.