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.
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.
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.
