Many people in their 30s, 40s and 50s are coming to the exact realization she had. After being an atheist for almost 20 years, anxiety, depression, therapists, psychologist, spiritualism, newageism Buddhism, Etc. I found the answer was right under my nose where I didn’t want to look. The church I grew up in. This is going to be more common story in the coming years.
The multiple, slightly differently angled, nuanced, and illustrated elucidating of key points is so strong in Speak Life videos. And the explanations and points in this video in particular are so profound and vital (and interesting to me). A superlative video.
The further I get in my faith the more I see how much God (or how little I) is responsible for all of it. Even being able to recognize my sinful nature is a grace I'm learning to thank God for every time.
Amen to that. I was the same. I thought I was good, but quite often bad things happened because of me. It was only when I realised that believed what I did, because I was lied to. ( Darwinian evolution) That I was able to realise. Why only God is good. There is different degrees of badness. But never again would I follow someone's opinion, because of who they were, or what position they held. I would look at the facts, and make a conditional opinion.
Great take! Ayaan perfectly articulated why I left agnosticism for Christianity. I had a freaky series of events that I had me finally accepted was the Holy Spirit calling me
I’m starting to suspect he worst. Calvinism is true and also baseline just. “ Some R born to sweet delight, others R born to the endless night”. Looks like you got the Holy spirit. If is not me, then I’m glad it’s you. If Gods wants me to go to hell with a smile on my face, we’ll so be it.
@@chriswest8389You should investigate Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Calvinism is an incredibly new idea, so is Protestantism. It’s roughly 400 years old. Calvin had a bizarre obsession with God’s sovereignty and over-emphasized this characteristic. Most reformers did this. The Father’s rejected this notion. St. Augustine mentioned pre-destination, but this is radically different than a Calvinist double pre-destination. Calvinist thought didn’t exist for 1,600 years, there is a rich a beautiful imagery of Christianity that exists before the rationalists started tearing apart scripture and making it fit a Calvinist atmosphere. Orthodoxy is what the Christians practiced until 1054 when the Catholic Church split from the Eastern Church. Rely on the Father’s and it’ll put you at ease.
@@mrbungle2627 I have looked into Orthodoxy, though not throully.I was attracted to it because, it’s it true you don’t do PSA? If so, no babies burning in Hell - the default position, thus you can t have babies in practice- some Calvinists(‘Baalgate’, Idol killer channel calls it)burning in hell. IAugustinian anthropology - part and parcel. To be fair, Burn babie burn, was Unofficial catholic doctrine, not dogma thus and certainly not anathma to deny it. Doesn’t orthodoxy though believe in infant baptism. Is it basically symbolic like Jewish babie boys when they get clipped on day 8 as part of the covenant? As far as, I’m calling it the third leg of Augustineian anthropology, aledged double predestination, doesn’t orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism- modern, believe those who don’t, who R of the age of accountability, who don’t hear the gospel,) , go straight to Hell? There’s at least one other thing that bothers me about orthodoxy- the ethnic exclusivity. When the You tuber Brain Holdsworth investigated Orthodoxy, he wasn’t made to feel welcome. And when Scott Hahn investigated Greek Ortgoldoxy, he felt he almost had to be more Greek then the Greek . Both converted to Catholicism. True, where I live there’s a big Portuguese parish and one that , from the outside looks like it caters to ethnic poles- Abig statue of pope John Paul the second is it, outside. One thing I don’t like about either is both organizations involvement in politics and worldly affairs. It seems to me, it’s in violation of Christ adage to render ceazars things to Caesar and Gods things to God. IF I ever do get babtized I( as an adult) it will as a prod unless I can find good biblical and non sola scriptural grounds for doing otherwise. The main reason I hope Protestantism-non reformed, non psa, is true, is because prods can vote their conscious. I don’t believe all one has to do is believe in Jesus though.Correct doctrine and church history are important. U. One will still be held accountable.The Holy Spirit, not church athiority gets you to the show. Thanks for your response.
Dawkins comes across as the more narrow-minded with unmanageable vitriolic feelings towards Christianity. The way he dismisses all that Ayaan shared about her experiences concerning her faith - making herself vulnerable, is pretty brutish. There we go, humanist ethics!
Dawkins has led an incredibly comfortable life and has never really experienced suffering. He's essentially just a mediocre person with a massive ego and a talent for communication
Wonderful! Ayaan Hirsi testimony brought tears to my eyes. Your commentary is by far the best exposition and summary I have heard on the Gospel applied to the Christian verse Atheist debate. Very powerful, will be sending it to all my family! One of the positive effects of the Post-Modern dystopia we increasingly find ourselves in is that the Church is finally taking the gloves off the Gospel! It can take on all comers with the overwhelming power of Love!!!
This isn't about Love. This is about the existence of a deity. We now know that God does not exist, and this has been proven. Ali has just switched from one religion to another for emotional reasons.
@@whittfamily1 I am glad that you are acknowledging that Atheism is a Religion in your reply. If it is between a godless, loveless religion and one that is centered in Love. Guess which one is better?
@@johnslagboom1836 Atheism is not a religion. Secular humanism, which includes atheism, is a nonreligious worldview which embraces both love and reason. Secular humanism is the best worldview of all of them.
@@whittfamily1 Lay some of this so-called proof on me please! I have been educated in our secular school system from birth through to the Doctoral level. I purposely took Human Evolution at UCLA, where I graduated with Honor, so that I could see what the best proof that Academia could through at me. Your Proof is the Proof of an Echo Chamber. What is your proof for Evolution, Age of the Earth/Universe, etc. I am not even an apologist. There are credible counter arguments for all of it. Just accept that you started with prepositions and came to the forgone conclusions your faith led you too, just like me and anyone else. You cannot prove that Everything came from Nothing, any more than I can prove it came from Something. However, Wisdom is justified by her Children (Luke 7:35) and that Everything came from Something has your side beat hands down! Why else would Dawkins and other world-famous atheist increasingly become either Cultural or Actual Christianity? This is not an Emotional argument that Ayaan is ultimately making. Atheism doesn't work. Look at the lives of the originators of atheistic systems of belief. Look at the fruit of those systems. Again, Wisdom is justified by her Children. "The Fool has said in his heart there is no God. They have become corrupt...they have done abdominal works..." Ps 14:1.
Im 36 going to 37 in august. I believed in Jesus and God when I was younger. This sunday im going back to Church again for the first time in years. Ayaan is a role model for me.
I know we're Christians and we're supposed to be graceful and loving, but I have to say, what a sad miserable human Dawkins is, coming back to that kind of disrespectful come back to such an intimate and vulnerable answer. Alex is spot on here. I do pray for Dawkins to step up from cultural Christianity to Christianity proper one day though.
It's bcoz Trinity concept abt JESUS.. Ofcourse for people it's NONSENSE !! Not surprise PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE AN ATHEIST !! WE CAN'T BLAME him for saying that...
I had a genuine vision and audible experience of Jesus Christ at my conversion. Why God would grace me with such an amazing pleasure, I do not know. But nothing has compared since, even other similar experiences, that followed intermittently the ensuing years. It was truly an experience of the "more than real" God: the real Reality and the true Truth. Also, this occurred when I was at my mental, emotional and physical peak (I had just qualified for the US Army Special Forces course), so Christ doesn't encounter only those who are "in the pits" or on the down and out. He also knocks the pride out of those who think they are at the top. That's my story at least.
Sorry, but if God did exist, he would not play favorites, as you have described. Instead, he would clearly present himself to everyone at the same time.
Yes! God is real and like you I had a radical experience with God at conversion . He so good and merciful when you come as a sinner and receive His grace. Does God exist . You are proof. I am proof.. I was the sinner who beat on his breast asking God to be merciful to me a sinner . You were just as much a sinner . God saves sinners.
@@timothystevens1924 not to knock your experience but to put it in context. What would you say, closer to home, about Catholics who’ve had visions of the Virgin Mary? Vatican 2, is still an exclusive club. Us prods R only getting saved on the irresistible irnorance ticket. And ,as the non Abrehemic faith Go, what about Buddhism, Hinduism and the like. What it ultimately comes down to is the folllowing: Transendance vs the Holy Spirit. Are you as a Christian misinterpreting transendance as the Holy Spirit, or was the Buddha misinterpreting the Holy Spirit as transcendence?
I enjoyed this video so well. It brought back memories to me about 2 years ago. It was a very difficult time in my life, lots of self hurt and much more. I read a little book describing Jesus. I prayed and had so much peace. It’s a long story. But Jesus was and still is real
I came to your analysis after having watched the debate between AHA and RD. You have done a wonderful job (as always) of it by not only breaking it down but also pointing out the contradictory comments RD has made in the past. Thank you!
So what if atheism doesn't offer anything? "Hi, I'm an atheist and I have nothing to offer this crumbling society. Would you like to go on a date?" 😐😐 Ladies, never forget this point.
What does atheism have to offer? By the standard of universalism, less than nothing. Anihilationism, nothing. Conditional immortality. A Hell of a Lott. External conciouss torment-EVERYTHING! Being saved from Damation counts for nearly everything. Saved for salvation, oh right, forgot, I go to heaven in that case. A mere after thought.
@@lkae4 I’m not an atheist or even a biblical sceptic. The argument that atheism has nothing to offer is simply false is all that Im saying for the reasons I stated. If there is no God and we’re not brains in a cat and we’re not living in a simulation, then ita cessation of consciousness when we die. ‘Non ons beat Malvons anytime. Thanx for your comment.
44:58 I remember Rick Warren saying it’s more logical to believe that dead tissue can reanimate rather than that inorganic material can spontaneously come alive
The theory of spontaneous generation of life was debunked long ago. The theory of abiogenesis is alive and well. There is no good evidence that any human person has ever come back to life. This is one good reason to not believe the Jesus came back to life, and there are several others.
Thanks for this brother! And thank you Richard Dawkins for proving the presuppositionalist apologists right! He committed to a world view and not even evidence will shift him. Just like David Hume before him.
I do think that Dawkins made a mistake in not stating what evidence would probably convince him that God exists. So, I will compensate for his error. If God did exist, he would clearly present himself to ALL HUMAN BEINGS at the same time, regularly, at least every seven years. But this has never happened. Therefore, God does not exist.
I think in this conversation, Dawkins is at last being presented with the kind of evidence for God that he couldn't possibly conceive of. It's not a disembodied voice, an arrangement of stars, or some other miraculous sensory phenomenon. It's the transformation of a fellow human that is completely shattering his categories. It's the unbelievable arc of a friend's life. You can tell he's grappling with something huge as he's forced to walk back many of the unkind things he's said about faith, while still desperately clinging to "it's nonsense." Well it is nonsense. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the prideful intellect of the likes of Dawkins. Yet, the holy spirit is there, pulling at his heart still, proving Ayaan's account correct.
@@whittfamily1 have you seen Glen debate Matt Dillahunty? I thought that was hugely impressive. And Glen's insights are often compelling and thought provoking IMHO
Dawkins is deluding himself (or is being deluded) if he thinks he believes nothing. That is absurd. You have to believe in only matter and motion as well. You have to believe in only atoms and quarks and spin. You have to believe in that worldview. Thank God for this woman's humility. God grant her strength in her journey to getting to know her Lord Jesus more and more every day. She was being gracious to Dawkins giving him an out. She knows full well that "agreeing to disagree" is a Christian stance and that he sounds like a fool in not recognizing that you can not weigh Love. She wasn't trying to make him look foolish, she came at it with grace. He made himself look that way.
Ali said Dawkins believes nothing. This was a straw man. Of course, Dawkins believes many things. He believes evolution is real. He just doesn't believe that God exists.
@@whittfamily1 I think she meant he (thinks he) believes in nothing but the "material world". The fact that he has to believe in something (make assumptions) just in order to operate as a human in the world was kind of my point. He doesn't EXAMINE what he believes which is a whole different ball of wax. :)
@@danatowne5498 DT: I think she meant he (thinks he) believes in nothing but the "material world". GW: Well, if that is what she meant, then I wish she would have clearly said it. He might think that, and if he does, I think I would disagree with that position. I would say that I believe in the material world because it has been proven, but I don’t yet believe in the spiritual world (whatever that may be) because it has not been proven. The spiritual world (deities, ghosts, spirits, souls, etc.?) may exist, but we don’t have good reasons to conclude that. DT: The fact that he has to believe in something (make assumptions) just in order to operate as a human in the world was kind of my point. GW: That’s a rather trivial point, IMO. What human being does not have beliefs? Of course we have beliefs! It is just that some beliefs are true and some are false. Some are rational and some are irrational. Some are proven and some are not. Some lead to bad behavior and some lead to good behavior. All beliefs are not created equal, not even close. For example, the belief “God exists” is irrational, unproven, and false. We now know this. DT: He doesn't EXAMINE what he believes which is a whole different ball of wax.:) GW: Of course he examines what he believes! How did you get the silly idea that he doesn’t? He examines his beliefs and the beliefs of others.
Love "solidsism" and the analogy. Going to start using this in conversation with my skeptic/atheistic friends and try to help get it infused into our standard English vocabulary.
"Solidism" is a red herring. I am an atheist and I do not believe that everything that exists is necessarily physical material. For example, thoughts seem to be real too. However, there is no good evidence or proof for such things as deities, angels, ghosts, souls, or an afterlife.
Thank you. A breath of fresh air. Among his bad arguments Professor Dawkins has one very good one: that a belief is useful for society or personally helpful does not make it any more true. CS Lewis develops it very convincingly in his essay ‘Man or Rabbit?’. Of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali didn’t suggest that it did.
Time-stamp 7:55, 8:15, 9:04 - Alex O’Connor 10:10 - clash between right brain and left brain 11:04 - believing in nothing or something. 11:46, 13:18 - what would it take to believe in God? 47:18, 47:35 - the horrible impact of new atheism 48:18 - when you say there is nothing, you offer them nothing. 59:10, 1:00:00 - Alex O’Connor is cooking 1:00:27 - Unpacking what Alex said
What would it take to believe in God? If God did exist, he would present himself objectively to ALL PERSONS AT THE SAME TIME, regularly. Wouldn't that be sufficient?
The moment Richard said, why should atheism offer you anything why should the universe offer you anything, he has now rendered everything meaningless, which means why does he open his mouth because it is meaningless, that's the beauty of God, god offers you everything, now everything becomes meaningful, now everything has value.
You are just misunderstanding him. (I don't think he explained that point very well.) The universe is not a person; it does not care about us humans. There is no person pulling the strings of the universe who cares about us. For example, if God did exist, he would have cared about us and prevented the Holocaust. But it occurred. Duh. Thus, God does not exist.
I am just an undergraduate senior, but i think I can arguement against solipism that cuts off the circular reasoning of that position. Quite frankly, there's an 'elegant' low level proof of the outside world world beyond your conscious will and pteference than to think of *any* time something has not gone according to your personal plan. There's a quite visceral example of idipendent minds and independent value structures if you get involved in a traffic accident with oncoming traffic because neither of you relented to traffic signals. It's necessarily insufficient to "write" away a solution. if mercifully, you come out physically unscathed. You still have to account for your perceptions of failing you.
A thorough-going solipsist can say, even after the car crash, "Every experience of the car crash was something perceived within my own consciousness. And there's no theory, no value, no experiment, no perception-not even a failure of perception-which you can bring to me that I do not experience within my own consciousness. You might have chosen to believe in this unbelievably grandiose metaphysical speculation called 'an external world'. All I know for certain is the "I" that knows. Everything else is unproveable and doesn't deserve to be called true."
@@whittfamily1 You don't know Jesus yet, my friend. Just wait til you do. It changes *everything* . Because it's not a religion. It's a *relationship* .
@@ingela_injeela My friend, Jesus is dead. So you can't know Jesus now and you can't have a relationship with him. Get real! However, I know a great deal about Jesus, probably more than you. Christianity is a religion, not a relationship.
Yes, Dawkins Christianity does completely change the universe . Yes it creates personal comfort but it also fully changes perspective on math, physics, science and how fantastic it will be to fully know the author of it all. Christians will have an eternity to learn it all and the fascination will be endless.
@@whittfamily1 well seeing as the author is my set premise that I already have all the proof I need for Him. I really don’t see a need to provide proof for other people especially YT comment philosophers. I have already come to my conclusion. As well as Ayaan. Have a blessed day.
@@awholelottawords1536 AL1: well seeing as the author is my set premise that I already have all the proof I need for Him. GW1: There is no proof that God exists. In fact, there are numerous proofs that he doesn’t. AL1: I really don’t see a need to provide proof for other people especially YT comment philosophers. GW1: I am challenging you to prove your belief that God exists, so now you have a moral duty to make the attempt. This is called “the burden of proof.” AL1: I have already come to my conclusion. As well as Ayaan. GW1: Yes, you have both come to a false conclusion. AL1: Have a blessed day. GW1: There is nobody to bless us. You should audition of the “Handmaid’s Tale.” You’ve got the trope down.
@@whittfamily1 lol. Did the computer type out those words or did you? Or do you need both? If you’re looking for God in a test tube you won’t find him. No amount of philosophical flaunting will help your case. Picking apart YT comments seems exhausting I hope you find the rest you desperately need.
Of course he can! Gravity is greater. The electromagnetic force is greater. Einstein was greater. Darwin was greater. Dawkins just does not believe your "higher power" exists. Besides we now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
Around 1978, Dr. Robert A. Kraft, a Wheaton College Graduate School alumnus who had become an atheist and an accomplished biblical scholar, was a guest speaker at the graduate school. I talked with him after his lecture. He asked me, "If you had to choose between God and truth, which would you choose? I responded, "I would choose God, and by doing that, I believe I would gain truth, grace, and much more."
That was a trick question. Here is the proper one: "If you had to choose between truth and falsehood, which would you choose?" I would choose truth. The truth is that God does not exist, and this has been proven. From what I have read, everday a higher percentage of theists become atheists than atheists become theists. So the trend favors atheism, and this is a good thing.
Richard Dawkins wonderfully channelling his inner ‘so what you’re saying is…’ spirit. A kingdom divided against itself is doing its very best to stand “push harder!”.
That clip of Dawkins and Peter Boghossian is insane. Dawkins is a blind believing religious fanatic for naturalism. His unashamedly circular reasoning is truly something to behold
No. I think you are just misunderstanding Dawkins. I could be mistaken but I think Dawkins accepts materialism because there is good evidence for it, whereas there is no good evidence for spiritual things.
I find it a bit odd that no one on the panel mentioned the fact that atheism by itself isn't a religion, moral philosophy or world view, but a rejection of a single claim, which is the idea that a (supernatural) god or gods exist. So in that particular sense, Richard is indeed correct to say that atheism doesn't owe you any comfort, solace or moral guidance. But to be fair, his real point was that he cares about what's objectively true, above anything else. He'd rather see the world (as close to) how it is, not as anyone would like it to be. Personally, I think that's a solid way of thinking, because it keeps you from bullshitting yourself, believing in things just because they make you feel better. Furthermore, as many religious people do, Ayaan seems to compartmentalize her faith and only take the parts she deems to be moral (through a 21st-century lens) onboard, while discarding the ideas, parts most modern people would find, shall we say, less appealing or convincing. Finally, personal anecdotes, however heartfelt, aren't going to convince any rational, objective skeptic. What you need is good, solid, reliable evidence, even more so if the claim includes the supernatural. So until that's done, as far as gods go, atheism seems to be the default position.
In the US, we used to have Selective Service, also called the draft, which required some young men to perform military duties. Selective Service was devised by minds. Why should natural selection not be understood to have been devised by a mind?
The idea of natural selection was devised by a mind -- the mind of Charles Darwin. But there is no good evidence that the orderliness in nature was designed by any mind.
So she prays to something and feels a response that she ascribes to god. Could that something be the Islamic god? If it's the Christian god then she's had 18 months to know that she must also believe in Jesus' ministry, resurrection and being born of a virgin. Oh yes and also that Jesus is god. Anything else and she's not a regular Christian, just a theist.
Ali may now be a Christian, although we weren't provided with enough information to judge this. However, Christianity is mostly false and nonsensical. Most people don't know that Ali was "saved" by secular humanists. It's ironic that she has now rejected them.
Don’t worry about the teachings of Christianity,if you can’t agree .we have to see the greatness of Christ.the most earth shaking teaching He gave is “ love your neighbour as thyself “ this is the most miraculous teaching ! This taught Lincoln to say malice towards none and charity for all.this love has forced us to see all others as our brothers and sisters.this love stopped wars,discrimination,ill treatments,slavery, violence,exploitation and persecution.this love has inspired millions to forget about their comfortable life,home,dear ones and native place and against all odds going to distant places to alleviate the suffering and pain of others.again this love has inspired many to kneel down and clean the ecreta and the stinking wounds of millions of patients all over the world. If Christ can achieve this much I think I can believe He is God.
Jesus also taught that God exists, and he was mistaken. Another time he was mistaken was when he forgave the adulterous woman. Another time he was mistaken is when he ignored and disparaged his own mother. Jesus was not all he was cracked up to be, even in the unreliable stories about him. Besides, God does not exist, and this has been proven.
Richard intensely dislikes the "Why" question, he says "Why is a stupid question and does not deserve an answer" Yet whenever he meets a Christian he asks "Why are you a Christian? "Why are you, not a Muslim.? I wish for once they would respond with "Why is a stupid question and does not deserve an answer"
When something could have been other than what it is, then the "why" question is appropriate. But sometimes things could not have been otherwise, then the "why" question is irrelevant. Example of the latter: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Example of the former: "Why are you a theist rather than an atheist?"
I remember watching the Reason Rally video, where Richard told the crowd to mock Christianity. Then this year he said I like to think of himself as a "Cutral Christian" Richard "We have secular humanism and we have rationalism and moral philosophy, that is how we decide which bits of Christianity we like and which bits we don't like. We Cherry Pick! Cherry Picking is something he has accused Christian of doing
Oh, I totally disagree. Most of his answers were outstanding. I especially liked it when he said that he believed that Ali was now indeed a Christian and Christianity is nonsense. Great answer!
Ms Hirsi Ali grew up in the faith and she had to return to it, only to a religion that suits her better. My wife is also ex Muslim and she sometimes feels the same withdrawal symptoms. Would it not be nice if life had a perspective beyond death? It's different when you grow up without religion like I did.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Wish Fulfillment: 6-21-2024 1. Human persons believe that any thing Z exists either because there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Z or there is not sufficient evidence for Z but they wish that Z would exist. This is a psychological fact about human nature.. 2. Some human persons believe that God exists. 3. There is not sufficient evidence that God exists. 4. Therefore, the human persons who do believe that God exists do so because they wish that God would exist. 5. But if God did exist, there would be sufficient evidence that he does exist. He would provide it. 6. Therefore, God does not exist even though some people believe that he does.
@@whittfamily1 Did you come up with this? It sounds logical but I fear point #5 is not compelling. God might act in mysterious ways for unknown reasons. For example, he may stay hidden to test people. In addition, some people subjectively feel that God heard them or worked something in their lives and they are prepared to accept this evidence. It is just not demonstrable and repeatable in scientific sense. Up to #4 it clearly applies to Ms HIrsi Ali.
@@erikt1713 ET1: Did you come up with this? GW1: Yes, this is my newest argument. ET1: It sounds logical but I fear point #5 is not compelling. GW1: Point #5 is rational and correct, even if it is not compelling to you. But tell me why you don’t find it compelling. ET1: God might act in mysterious ways for unknown reasons. GW1: Maybe in some cases, but not in this case. Because God would all-powerful and perfectly moral, he would present himself to ALL OF US SIMULTANEOUSLY, on a regular basis. If you think not, then make your case. ET1: For example, he may stay hidden to test people. GW1: No. He might test people, but not by hiding himself. He would clearly show himself, and then he might give us an ethical code and then test us to see if we would comply or not. ET1: In addition, some people subjectively feel that God heard them or worked something in their lives and they are prepared to accept this evidence. GW1: It is evidence of a certain type. It is subjective anecdotal evidence, but it is not sufficient objective evidence for the existence of God. We know what that would be, if God did exist. ET1: It is just not demonstrable and repeatable in scientific sense. Up to #4 it clearly applies to Ms HIrsi Ali. GW1: Yep. Nobody should accept Ali’s claim that God exists. She has reached that conclusion through insufficient evidence and wishful thinking. Even I wish that God did exist! I just don’t believe he does. In fact, I know he doesn’t.
@@whittfamily1He does not seem reasonable, he deliberately tries to be only cerebral in these discussions, no higher abstraction. ChatGPT is more reasonable. He looks very religious, very soulish, and very spiritual, the wrong spirit though. Btw, I agree with his view that original sin doctrine from traditional institutional churches does not seem reasonable, but why does a supposedly reasonable man choose profanity and mockery to articulate his views? Because he walks following the wrong spirit.
Sorry, but something (including synapses) cannot come from nothing, never has, never will. There is no need for a creator of the universe. God has lost another job. He can't seem to hold a job.
I went into this with an open mind but the second she saw a therapist who diagnosed her with "spiritual bankruptcy" I had to shut off. There is no evidence that spiritual bankruptcy is a thing. The 12 step programme which is based on the idea of spiritual bankruptcy has very poor results. Jim Orford found that it worked for about 20-30% of cases of which some of these individuals would have been successful without because spontaneous remission happens in cases. St Agustine himself said it would only work in a small amount of individual cases. Americans have the worst alcohol addiction crisis in the first world statistically and yet are the most christian of these countries. In his book Holy anorexia, Rudolph Bell demonstrated that therapies based on the 12 step programme with addicted personalities are suspect to become addicted to religion instead of alcohol based on the programme. This has led to dangerous results such as individuals in the catholic inquisition, the life of certain saints and the protestant witch hunts.
Is any one aware that Dawkins has never published a research paper since his PhD dissertation. He is not a scientist. He does not practice science. He speaks and writes about incoherent Philosophy. He has been told repeatedly that evolution and origin of life are not the same thing and he still confuses them. This is not a smart rational logical man. He is a very well spoken, well educated, blind fool who constantly contradicts himself.
And yet, Dawkins is correct on nearly everything he says. He is a very smart, educated, articulate, rational, and ethical man. I don't think he fully realizes, however, that God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 I would suggest that if you were to do a survey on the street, you would most likely find that most people who even know of Richard Dawkins will know of him because of books like "The God Delusion" but would know very little about his scientific work. I contend that he likes the publicity and notoriety that he receives as a crusading atheist and that may mar his objectivity.
@@timothyjordan5731 TJ2: I would suggest... GW2: You would suggest or you do suggest? TJ2: that if you were to do a survey on the street, you would most likely find that most people who even know of Richard Dawkins will know of him because of books like "The God Delusion" but would know very little about his scientific work. GW2: Maybe, maybe not. His first book “The Selfish Gene” was very popular. TJ2: I contend that he likes the publicity and notoriety that he receives as a crusading atheist and that may mar his objectivity. GW2: There is nothing wrong with liking publicity and notoreity for doing ethical activities, as in the case of Dawkins. He is very objective. Ali is very subjective.
When Alex says "it's almost comical" I think he is tipping his hand. I don't think he means comical in the sense of "happy, opposed to tragedy." It shows the arrogance of the atheist; these things are comical in that a child could understand them and, as such, they cannot be true.
The video is one great example of confirmation bias to me. Watched this video immediately after the original debate and I was shocked by some misrepresentations of what happened there. Very sad(
When you talk about ignoring the wise and believing like children your talking about gullibility. And that is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become, gullible.
I think Dawkins' response was right on the money. She'd created an uncomfortable moment by making it incredibly personal, deflecting away from mentioning the core absurdities in Christianity, and set up a situation where it would look distasteful to actually challenge her on her claim to be a Christian now. Nothing in her personal story confirmed that she's a Christian, just that she reached out and felt like she connected to something. She could have tagged on the end that she's now a Muslim or Buddhist and it wouldn't have made any more or less sense than her saying she's now a Christian. Dawkins was just making it clear what being a Christian actually involves believing in.
There is no way you can believe in Christianity if your worldview is materialism. Once you understand materialism is an incoherent worldview, you start to look at the world with new eyes. The claims of Christianity are wild but they are historical and they are true. Reality is far more than we ever imagined. Christianity is trusting Christ.
Check this out and tell me what you think: Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Wish Fulfillment: 6-21-2024 1. Human persons believe that any thing Z exists either because there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Z or there is not sufficient evidence for Z but they wish that Z would exist. This is a psychological fact about human nature.. 2. Some human persons believe that God exists. 3. There is not sufficient evidence that God exists. 4. Therefore, the human persons who do believe that God exists do so because they wish that God would exist. 5. But if God did exist, there would be sufficient evidence that he does exist. He would provide it. 6. Therefore, God does not exist even though some people believe that he does.
55:22 Dawkins: "you appear to be a theist". Richard, how does a material brain recognize the appearance of theism? Since the material universe can't step outside of itself (by definition), it therefore can't conceive of things like gods. An odd catch 22. This must be why people like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say a material cosmology can't account for consciousness.
@@whittfamily1 here's the fundamental brute fact. Material cosmology says you're wrong. For consciousness to "emerge", the material universe must step outside of itself - impossible by definition. This is as likely to happen as a circle being square. Material cosmology says a brain can't even recognize illusions of consciousness. Very weird, but not surprising, to be repeating myself.
@@gregorytoews8316 GT1: here's the fundamental brute fact. Material cosmology says you're wrong. GW1: Material cosmology doesn’t say anything because it is not a person. But what do you think I am wrong about? GT1: For consciousness to "emerge", the material universe must step outside of itself - impossible by definition. GW1: No, it need not do that. There is no “stepping outside of itself.” Material brains just produce consciousness. We don’t yet know how this happens or why it happens or if we could ever know. Right now it is just a brute fact. This is sometimes known as “the hard problem of consciousness.” GT1: This is as likely to happen as a circle being square. GW1: False. A circle cannot be a square. That is logically impossible. But a brain could generate or produce consciousness. That is logically and metaphysically possible. GT1: Material cosmology says a brain can't even recognize illusions of consciousness. GW1: False. Consciousness is not an illusion. Even DesCartes said “I think, therefore I am.” He was on the right track.
The Vickar of Dibley sealed it for me . Many different ,colorful characters make up the small sheepy farming town of Dibley . One day they wake up and their church has a female vickar (Dawn French), which most thought was absolutely proposterous. This made it hard for the new Vickar .( Apparently a few of the older men in the village found it quite hard too ...wink wink) ...But rather than shy away from the initial resentment by ,she persists, uniting the townsfolk to become a bright light in the community - C'mon Richard , Only God could write a show like that..Surely ! ( Do please note - Comment may contain spoonarisms ,fork n word cutlery and other sharp /blunt utensils often effective in the combat of oxy mororns , mounting depression and in some cases.. lamb soup).
Why did you dodge the very important point that Dawkins made - the moral framework that we have also makes us cherry pick Christianity, our morals do not need religion to exist and be developed further. Some aspect of other religions are more moral then Christianity and we had Greek moral philosophy long before Christianity.
Some of us can and do cherry pick Christianity for our moral code, but we don't need to do that. We can devise a proper moral code through reason and compassion.
I like the idea of a few people I admire to unite. Living in Love that can not be ever captured Knowing every atom that creates the matter of Love but never loving love or not want to watch loved ones dance Stroke joke What is the matter with the world !!!!! The world is full of matter !!!!!!!! I love both I love his non stop request and search for truth. He is wanting to know She was so beautiful What’s beauty ?
@@whittfamily1 Wich God are you talking about ? Did you like the poetry ? Thanks so much for commenting kindly I’m very stupid and emotional so I really love your comment. Poetry and riddles are supposed to get the frontal cortex dismantling words into multi past emotions for thinking. Can you please give some things to do so I get better understanding
My impression is that they disagree about what Truth is and until that discussed (Not necessarily agreed upon) openly, I would argue talking about any topics, let alone fundamental topics such as God, atheism, faith, reason etc. is going to be difficult with any perspicacity. For example, if Truth is exclusively what is empirically verifiable (ignoring Quine for now) , then philosophy, metaphysics and theology (and maybe maths?) become 'useless' concepts (or language games?). But, if Truth is expanded to included more elements e.g. 1st person experience or immaterial objects (consciousness, maths, forms) or whatever, then maybe it is possible to talk about theology? Coming from different concepts of Truth seems to me to lead to the moment Dawkins all but dismisses Ali's story of depression and redemption with the statement 'but do you believe in the virgin birth?' I am not sure Dawkins would be very happy to let in Truth beyond the scientific, which is a position that does have some attractive qualities... I am thinking out loud here so please have mercy on me comments section.
I think that's very much behind what Ayaan says: "I believe there is something, you do not believe there is something." It's why I make the comparison with solipsism. While-ever Richard clings to a kind of logical positivism, he will never be able to hear the truth claims of Christianity (or, to be honest, any metaphysic other than scientism).
You say "Truth is expanded to included more elements", yes it must be in everything including science. Dawkins should be able to see the Truth of God in science.
When Ali says "I now believe God exists," this is probably true. But when anyone says "God exists" this is not true. This is false. It has now been proven that God does not exist.
@@whittfamily1 That's great news. Can you link me to the proof? I haven't seen the proof myself, and I'd like to square the God question away, to be honest (I know too many evangelicals to pass up this opportunity).
As an armature composer and Bach enthusiast, Dawkins' "Well, it's neurology" was sincerly painful. To me, music is just as real a means of sensing God as drinking tea is a means of sensing Twinings Earl Grey. A man can feel free - in his trip of logical consistency - to dismiss both God and Earl Grey, but such is a standpoint towards rationality that I do not covet. Also, the Irishman interviewing Dawkins immediately made me think of Donnal and Connal and it was bueatiful.
G’day Glen, an issue I have with Dawkins is that he shows little application of political science to the fundamental totalitarian political nature of theism as a socio-political ordering principle. He acknowledges the alleged Abrahamic god is a dictator but doesn’t follow that observation through and expand on the major flaw in Abrahamic religion as an ordering principle, that it is inherently an authoritarian ordering principle political ideology that governs by totalitarianism. Having been a politician, Ali, as she stated in this discussion, has an understanding of the totalitarian nature of the authoritarian political ideology that is Islam, yet she seems to be blind to the fact that all three Abrahamic religions have this authoritarian and totalitarian political ideology. It’s not just Islam. Christianity has spent most of its political existence as a totalitarian ordering principle and only in recent centuries has it been forced into an accommodation with modern democracy and been stripped of much, but by no means not all, of its practical political power. Ali is correct when she says Islam is a totalitarian political ideology. But so is Christianity, and Judaism, which she doesn’t seem to recognise. Because he doesn’t bring much political science to bear, Dawkins asks the wrong question. He should ask Ali something like - You know why you don’t want to breath air poisoned by the totalitarianism of Islamic authoritarianism, so why do you want to breath air poisoned by the totalitarianism of Christian authoritarianism? It appears Ali is mistaking Western liberal social democracy for Christianity. It shouldn’t take her too much study, given her background as a politician in a liberal social democracy, to realise that democracy is not a Christian concept and Christianity is not democratic. The largest identifier of Western society is not religion, it is liberal social democracy, a fact which apologists don’t like to acknowledge, instead asserting that our major values are of Christian origin, when they are not as the West of today borrowed much of its values from the Pagans who came before Christianity. How can democracy be a fruit of Christianity when democracy was created 500 years before Christianity was created? My father didn’t fight against Fascists in WW2 for Christianity. In that war, non-Christian liberal social democrats like my father and Christian liberal social democrats fought together against Fascists who were mostly Christians, to defend, protect and advance liberal social democracy. What united them was the superiority of liberal social democracy as a socio-political ordering principle compared to Fascism. They were not united by Christianity. My father did not fly on a wing and a prayer, though he knew many around him were doing that. He said he flew on a wing (10%) and his flying skill (10%) and good luck (80%) of not being in the wrong piece of air at the wrong time. Yes, there are not only atheists in foxholes, there are atheists in cockpits. Be it Christo-fascism or Islamo- fascism or Marxist communism, it’s totalitarianism and it poisons the air we breathe. The team Ali is looking for as a bulwark against team Islam is the one staring her in the face, the one she has been professionally part of, despite its flaws - team liberal social democracy, a secular and humanist ideology that is inclusive of people of different world views. Team liberal social democracy brought Christianity to a political accommodation with democracy and liberal social democracy has to do that with team Islam and is having a good go of it in the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, though there is still a way to go yet before Indonesia generally catches up to the West in terms of liberal social democracy. Everyday Muslims whom I know, want to live in peace and prosperity and have come to know that the best chance of that is with liberal social democracy, not with exchanging the authoritarianism of Islam with the authoritarianism of Christianity. The voting people do with their feet is instructive. Dawkins doesn’t seem to understand, or has trouble articulating, that it is not a choice of only two religious ordering principles. There is another, the one that he actually lives and breathes in and has voted for across the decades since he reached voting age, liberal social democracy which is secular and humanist and inclusive of people of different world views.
To the contrary, Dawkins knows a great deal about Christianity. He knows more than most people know about it. He knows enough to know it is mostly false or nonsensical.
@@wishingwell12345 By studying Dawkins for years! I have read many of his books and watched many videos of him. I go further than Dawkins. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
Glen you do a brilliant job showing that God’s existence is evident by beauty, morality , consciousness and the laws of nature but dismiss the evidence Dawkins is looking for In the science of creation? Is that because you believe Evolution has given us the natural explanation for the diversity of life from the first simple creature to all creatures? A belief in evolution was a major stumbling block for me in my early Christian years. But because I see now that evolution is a feeble scientific explanation I can see that creation shouts as evidence for God and I agree with Dawkins when he says “the idea that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is a dramatic important idea… it’s a big thing…it’s bigger than personal comfort and nice stories”. Hopefully he will be persuaded by biological science someday.
I agree that Dawkins doesn't have what you call a scalable worldview, but he's always been philosophically shallow. However, there are more philosophically robust ways of thinking about existence that scale and also have no God, at least in the conventionally religious sense.
"God" is conventionally religious. There are other deities who are not conventionally religious. But they are all hypothetical. None has been proven to exist.
I dont think Glen knows the meaning of the word "solipsism". And also I think its easy to watch a video , pause it again and again and present strawmen / mischaracterizations of someone's arguments and respond with guffaws and head shaking and counter arguments which often miss the point ( though I admit he does make some good points). I like Glen and Ive seen and enjoyed many of his debates and presentations. But here he comes across as a bit smug. Im gonna go and rewatch his his debate with Bart Ehrman, during which, if I remember correctly, Mr Ehrman absolutely smokes him.
Most of people denied God base on their personal brokenness either from childhood or where they are, and it is dangerous to fall and try to live their life based on their individual brokenness, the best is for one to open up to Christ and help those still living in their brokeness ,bring the Truth and Hope Who is Jesus Christ our Hope of Glory May God protect and increase Hirsi in the knowledge of Christ, because Christ is real, may God give Richard personal experience of Himsef(Christ)
( ﾟーﾟ) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
The long, rich, and diverse history of Christianity makes room for a wide variety of propositional beliefs. Apart from the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man (forgive the traditionally metaphorical masculine language) as taught and embodied in the historical figure of Jesus, all such propositions are what William James called over-beliefs, which he also said were the most interesting aspects of religious faith.
you are the kind of person who doesn't even read the whole book of the selfish gene and pretend to undertand it only by looking at the name of the book. The selfish gene says the exact opposite of what you think.
We have been tailoring religion to fit our psychological and social cohesion needs for thousands of years already, they have been the main source of cultural identity and popular knowledge until the last few centuries. Of course it has to feel comforting and provide a sense of hope to the majority of people; that's how we made it to be. Just like we built cities to live and thrive together, we built fantasies and illusions to face hard realities of life and death. Human intellect and imagination is our biggest asset, it has made us the dominant species of the planet by far. But, if our imagination runs amok it can also become our own demise, making us loose total connection with reality .
People with these brains and worldly wisdom must come to faith in Jesus Christ as did Ayaan-- then they will know. A natural man does not understand these things of the Spirit of God. It is a foreign language. It is the problem of pride . Come as a sinner to Jesus --then you will know . Personally it happened to me by saying these seven words , " God be merciful to me a sinner." Mine was a "on the road to Damascus to experience", It was a definite instant new birth. I went into the church as a lost on the road to hell sinner and came out gloriously free. I suddenly knew there was a God , especially God as Father as Jesus introduced me to the Father and the Holy Spirit introduced me to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Richard Dawkins will one day find out there is a real God . Indeed we pray that he might humble himself while still alive and receive the greatest love that ever will be. Is there a God? . Yes! i am proof along will millions of others who have experienced this so great salvation made available for us because we received the Christ and His redemption who died for us , was buried and rose again.. .
@@whittfamily1 The real problem is like this: If you were blind you would not know that anything existed since you could not see it. A blind person does know not by sight but by touch or by someone telling him.. Likewise your position is predicated upon a faith in whatever has been " proven" to you and you prefer to believe this, yet as a blind person you cannot prove this is true because you cannot see it.. The issue is this . The devil has blinded the minds of them that believe not lest the light of the good news of Jesus Christ should shine unto them. I do pray your eyes and heart will open to the light. You see you do not want to receive or believe the testimony of millions who are proof that God exists. and is so good and through His Son saves the sinner who comes to Him. . I am proof with millions of others.
@@timothystevens1924 TS: The real problem is like this: If you were blind you would not know that anything existed since you could not see it. A blind person does know not by sight but by touch or by someone telling him.. GW: That is a horrible analogy. The real problem is like this: If God did exist, then nobody would be “blind”. God would present himself to ALL PERSONS SIMULTANEOUSLY, at regular intervals, at least every seven years. Why can’t you understand this? TS: Likewise your position is predicated upon a faith in whatever has been " proven" to you and you prefer to believe this, yet as a blind person you cannot prove this is true because you cannot see it. GW: That is pure nonsense! I have no faith. I abhor faith. Faith is a vice. I accept propositions which have been proven, like “God does not exist.” Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is the way to act in the world. TS: The issue is this . The devil has blinded the minds of them that believe not lest the light of the good news of Jesus Christ should shine unto them. GW: There is no good evidence or proof that a devil exists. The Good News is that the devil does not exist! Jesus is dead. He is no longer “shining”. If you carefully read the stories about him, you will see a lot of flaws. TS: I do pray your eyes and heart will open to the light. GW: Pray all you want. But as Dan Barker has said, “Nothing fails like prayer.” God does not exist to hear your prayers. You are talking to the wind. TS: You see you do not want to receive or believe the testimony of millions who are proof that God exists. GW: Nonsense! There is no proof that God exists. In fact, there are many proofs that God does not exist. The millions of people who think God exists, like you, are just mistaken. Don’t misunderstand me - I wish that God did exist. The world would be so much better. But sadly, he doesn’t. This is clear as can be. Just consider the Holocaust. That should be enough. TS: and is so good and through His Son saves the sinner who comes to Him. GW: Nope. If God did exist, he would have no sons or daughters. He would employ no messengers, prophets, or angels. He would do the communicating himself. Duh. TS: I am proof with millions of others. GW: You are not proof that God exists. You are just another little fallible and mistaken human being. You lack humility in the face of the unknown and the known. We now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
There is a huge amount of word salad spoken here. "Those who have faith have something that those without faith don't have" says AHA. (Ytuber nods, as if this is a profound statement.) This in no way means the things we believe are true. To be convinced of a proposition only when you are desperate or on your knees is a kind of coercion or manipulation. It is still all carrots and sticks. I am a materialist. Things that do not exist do not act in the mateial world. If God acts in this material world at all, it would be evident. Things that happen are evident, that is why empiricism works so well. Despite the cryptic critique of Dawkins, I stand with him. I suspect AHA does not actually believe the miracle claims and is more akin to a cultural Christian. In fact, either way, her conversion is matched by the next person who left faith for reason.
Some materialists believe that physical stuff is the only stuff that exists, but others (I) believe that spiritual stuff has not been proven to exist and so we should not embrace it at this time.
Richard Dawkins completely affirmed the personal dimension of her experience yet he has a valid question. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm glad he asked it. And yet here you are mocking it. Again, Richard Dawkins altogether affirmed the personal dimension of her experience. After that affirmation he had a serious and sincere question. Your characterization of Richard Dawkins was ludicrous throughout your commentary. Of course Richard Dawkins has a profound sense of beauty and appreciation about life. Your cognitive bias was showing throughout your interruptive commentary. Your two-dimensional assessment of Richard Dawkins was just a mere superficial mockery of him. To me you just embarrassed yourself.
Many people in their 30s, 40s and 50s are coming to the exact realization she had. After being an atheist for almost 20 years, anxiety, depression, therapists, psychologist, spiritualism, newageism Buddhism, Etc. I found the answer was right under my nose where I didn’t want to look. The church I grew up in. This is going to be more common story in the coming years.
God Bless you🎉
This is my story too! Born again last September ヽ(*⌒∇⌒*)ﾉ
Same
I've never been an atheist but I've been an agnostic for probably around 20 years - other than that, my story is much like yours.
So Christianity is a psychological crutch?
Lord, please protect and bless this brave young Christian
"Nothing fails like prayer" Dan Barker.
The multiple, slightly differently angled, nuanced, and illustrated elucidating of key points is so strong in Speak Life videos. And the explanations and points in this video in particular are so profound and vital (and interesting to me). A superlative video.
The further I get in my faith the more I see how much God (or how little I) is responsible for all of it. Even being able to recognize my sinful nature is a grace I'm learning to thank God for every time.
Amen to that. I was the same. I thought I was good, but quite often bad things happened because of me. It was only when I realised that believed what I did, because I was lied to. ( Darwinian evolution) That I was able to realise. Why only God is good. There is different degrees of badness. But never again would I follow someone's opinion, because of who they were, or what position they held. I would look at the facts, and make a conditional opinion.
Sorry Mark. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
Great take! Ayaan perfectly articulated why I left agnosticism for Christianity. I had a freaky series of events that I had me finally accepted was the Holy Spirit calling me
I’m starting to suspect he worst. Calvinism is true and also baseline just. “ Some R born to sweet delight, others R born to the endless night”. Looks like you got the Holy spirit. If is not me, then I’m glad it’s you. If Gods wants me to go to hell with a smile on my face, we’ll so be it.
@@chriswest8389You should investigate Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Calvinism is an incredibly new idea, so is Protestantism. It’s roughly 400 years old.
Calvin had a bizarre obsession with God’s sovereignty and over-emphasized this characteristic. Most reformers did this.
The Father’s rejected this notion. St. Augustine mentioned pre-destination, but this is radically different than a Calvinist double pre-destination.
Calvinist thought didn’t exist for 1,600 years, there is a rich a beautiful imagery of Christianity that exists before the rationalists started tearing apart scripture and making it fit a Calvinist atmosphere.
Orthodoxy is what the Christians practiced until 1054 when the Catholic Church split from the Eastern Church.
Rely on the Father’s and it’ll put you at ease.
@@mrbungle2627 I have looked into Orthodoxy, though not throully.I was attracted to it because, it’s it true you don’t do PSA? If so, no babies burning in Hell - the default position, thus you can t have babies in practice- some Calvinists(‘Baalgate’, Idol killer channel calls it)burning in hell. IAugustinian anthropology - part and parcel.
To be fair, Burn babie burn, was Unofficial catholic doctrine, not dogma thus and certainly not anathma to deny it.
Doesn’t orthodoxy though believe in infant baptism. Is it basically symbolic like Jewish babie boys when they get clipped on day 8 as part of the covenant?
As far as, I’m calling it the third leg of Augustineian anthropology, aledged double predestination, doesn’t orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism- modern, believe those who don’t, who R of the age of accountability, who don’t hear the gospel,) , go straight to Hell?
There’s at least one other thing that bothers me about orthodoxy- the ethnic exclusivity. When the You tuber Brain Holdsworth investigated Orthodoxy, he wasn’t made to feel welcome. And when Scott Hahn investigated Greek Ortgoldoxy, he felt he almost had to be more Greek then the Greek .
Both converted to Catholicism. True, where I live there’s a big Portuguese parish and one that , from the outside looks like it caters to ethnic poles- Abig statue of pope John Paul the second is it, outside.
One thing I don’t like about either is both organizations involvement in politics and worldly affairs. It seems to me, it’s in violation of Christ adage to render ceazars things to Caesar and Gods things to God.
IF I ever do get babtized I( as an adult)
it will as a prod unless I can find good biblical and non sola scriptural grounds for doing otherwise.
The main reason I hope Protestantism-non reformed, non psa, is true, is because prods can vote their conscious.
I don’t believe all one has to do is believe in Jesus though.Correct doctrine and church history are important. U. One will still be held accountable.The Holy Spirit, not church athiority gets you to the show.
Thanks for your response.
Because God does not exist (proven), the Holy Spirit does not exist.
Dawkins comes across as the more narrow-minded with unmanageable vitriolic feelings towards Christianity. The way he dismisses all that Ayaan shared about her experiences concerning her faith - making herself vulnerable, is pretty brutish. There we go, humanist ethics!
"Unmanageable"?
Dawkins has led an incredibly comfortable life and has never really experienced suffering. He's essentially just a mediocre person with a massive ego and a talent for communication
@@wishingwell12345 possibly emotional suffering from relationship failures.
I totally disagree. Glenn comes off as the most narrow-minded person in this video.
Dawkins is half Jewish
Wonderful! Ayaan Hirsi testimony brought tears to my eyes. Your commentary is by far the best exposition and summary I have heard on the Gospel applied to the Christian verse Atheist debate. Very powerful, will be sending it to all my family! One of the positive effects of the Post-Modern dystopia we increasingly find ourselves in is that the Church is finally taking the gloves off the Gospel! It can take on all comers with the overwhelming power of Love!!!
This isn't about Love. This is about the existence of a deity. We now know that God does not exist, and this has been proven. Ali has just switched from one religion to another for emotional reasons.
@@whittfamily1 I am glad that you are acknowledging that Atheism is a Religion in your reply. If it is between a godless, loveless religion and one that is centered in Love. Guess which one is better?
@@johnslagboom1836 Atheism is not a religion. Secular humanism, which includes atheism, is a nonreligious worldview which embraces both love and reason. Secular humanism is the best worldview of all of them.
@@whittfamily1 Lay some of this so-called proof on me please! I have been educated in our secular school system from birth through to the Doctoral level. I purposely took Human Evolution at UCLA, where I graduated with Honor, so that I could see what the best proof that Academia could through at me. Your Proof is the Proof of an Echo Chamber. What is your proof for Evolution, Age of the Earth/Universe, etc. I am not even an apologist. There are credible counter arguments for all of it. Just accept that you started with prepositions and came to the forgone conclusions your faith led you too, just like me and anyone else. You cannot prove that Everything came from Nothing, any more than I can prove it came from Something. However, Wisdom is justified by her Children (Luke 7:35) and that Everything came from Something has your side beat hands down! Why else would Dawkins and other world-famous atheist increasingly become either Cultural or Actual Christianity? This is not an Emotional argument that Ayaan is ultimately making. Atheism doesn't work. Look at the lives of the originators of atheistic systems of belief. Look at the fruit of those systems. Again, Wisdom is justified by her Children. "The Fool has said in his heart there is no God. They have become corrupt...they have done abdominal works..." Ps 14:1.
Im 36 going to 37 in august. I believed in Jesus and God when I was younger. This sunday im going back to Church again for the first time in years. Ayaan is a role model for me.
I know we're Christians and we're supposed to be graceful and loving, but I have to say, what a sad miserable human Dawkins is, coming back to that kind of disrespectful come back to such an intimate and vulnerable answer. Alex is spot on here. I do pray for Dawkins to step up from cultural Christianity to Christianity proper one day though.
It's bcoz Trinity concept abt JESUS.. Ofcourse for people it's NONSENSE !!
Not surprise PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE AN ATHEIST !!
WE CAN'T BLAME him for saying that...
@@therealps.sarahthepropheciesWhat are you even saying?
It's so sad to say
@@therealps.sarahtheprophecies so you bash the doctrine of the Trinity while referring to yourself as 'WE'? Interesting 😊
@@therealps.sarahthepropheciesthe virgin birth of Jesus is nonsense to many people but that doesn’t make it untrue.
I love this video.
What a beautiful commentary on an incredible conversation! Thank you for your work.
Clean, clear and concise analysis, brilliant.
I aimed for one hour, so I'm not sure it was as concise as it could have been, but thank you!
@@SpeakLifeMedia Brilliant nonetheless!
Too kind. Thank you!
Yup. I stuck to the end and coz you asked I gave a like as I realised ... I listened thoughtfully thru. Thanks
AND a comment. Thank you very much!
Brilliantly done, Glen, as I’ve come to expect from you.
Poorly done, Glen. Full of mocking by you.
I had a genuine vision and audible experience of Jesus Christ at my conversion. Why God would grace me with such an amazing pleasure, I do not know. But nothing has compared since, even other similar experiences, that followed intermittently the ensuing years. It was truly an experience of the "more than real" God: the real Reality and the true Truth.
Also, this occurred when I was at my mental, emotional and physical peak (I had just qualified for the US Army Special Forces course), so Christ doesn't encounter only those who are "in the pits" or on the down and out. He also knocks the pride out of those who think they are at the top. That's my story at least.
Enie meanie mini mo. Your irresistible. Your invincible. Brought to you by Calvin Christ. Congrats. I mean that. Peace
Good One!
Sorry, but if God did exist, he would not play favorites, as you have described. Instead, he would clearly present himself to everyone at the same time.
Yes! God is real and like you I had a radical experience with God at conversion . He so good and merciful when you come as a sinner and receive His grace. Does God exist . You are proof. I am proof.. I was the sinner who beat on his breast asking God to be merciful to me a sinner . You were just as much a sinner . God saves sinners.
@@timothystevens1924 not to knock your experience but to put it in context. What would you say, closer to home, about Catholics who’ve had visions of the Virgin Mary? Vatican 2, is still an exclusive club. Us prods R only getting saved on the irresistible irnorance ticket.
And ,as the non Abrehemic faith Go, what about Buddhism, Hinduism and the like.
What it ultimately comes down to is the folllowing: Transendance vs the Holy Spirit.
Are you as a Christian misinterpreting transendance as the Holy Spirit, or was the Buddha misinterpreting the Holy Spirit as transcendence?
I enjoyed this video so well. It brought back memories to me about 2 years ago. It was a very difficult time in my life, lots of self hurt and much more. I read a little book describing Jesus. I prayed and had so much peace. It’s a long story. But Jesus was and still is real
Thank you for your commentary. It is so valuable to go through these conversations with a guide.
Glad it was helpful!
I came to your analysis after having watched the debate between AHA and RD. You have done a wonderful job (as always) of it by not only breaking it down but also pointing out the contradictory comments RD has made in the past. Thank you!
Glenn was acting as a troll to Dawkins. Too bad. It ruined his analysis.
Thank you so much Glen, I saw it to the end too. God bless you in Oxford in the next few days.
God does not exist, and this has been proven.
So what if atheism doesn't offer anything? "Hi, I'm an atheist and I have nothing to offer this crumbling society. Would you like to go on a date?" 😐😐 Ladies, never forget this point.
What does atheism have to offer? By the standard of universalism, less than nothing. Anihilationism, nothing. Conditional immortality. A Hell of a Lott. External conciouss torment-EVERYTHING! Being saved from Damation counts for nearly everything. Saved for salvation, oh right, forgot, I go to heaven in that case. A mere after thought.
@@chriswest8389 You're an atheist because you heard about ECT?
@@chriswest8389 You're atheist because of the doctrine of eternal conscious torment?
@@lkae4 I’m not an atheist or even a biblical sceptic. The argument that atheism has nothing to offer is simply false is all that Im saying for the reasons I stated. If there is no God and we’re not brains in a cat and we’re not living in a simulation, then ita cessation of consciousness when we die. ‘Non ons beat Malvons anytime. Thanx for your comment.
@@chriswest8389 That's what Dawkins said. Go debate him.
44:58
I remember Rick Warren saying it’s more logical to believe that dead tissue can reanimate rather than that inorganic material can spontaneously come alive
The theory of spontaneous generation of life was debunked long ago. The theory of abiogenesis is alive and well. There is no good evidence that any human person has ever come back to life. This is one good reason to not believe the Jesus came back to life, and there are several others.
Thanks for this brother! And thank you Richard Dawkins for proving the presuppositionalist apologists right! He committed to a world view and not even evidence will shift him. Just like David Hume before him.
I do think that Dawkins made a mistake in not stating what evidence would probably convince him that God exists. So, I will compensate for his error. If God did exist, he would clearly present himself to ALL HUMAN BEINGS at the same time, regularly, at least every seven years. But this has never happened. Therefore, God does not exist.
These videos are brilliant
I think in this conversation, Dawkins is at last being presented with the kind of evidence for God that he couldn't possibly conceive of. It's not a disembodied voice, an arrangement of stars, or some other miraculous sensory phenomenon. It's the transformation of a fellow human that is completely shattering his categories. It's the unbelievable arc of a friend's life.
You can tell he's grappling with something huge as he's forced to walk back many of the unkind things he's said about faith, while still desperately clinging to "it's nonsense."
Well it is nonsense. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the prideful intellect of the likes of Dawkins. Yet, the holy spirit is there, pulling at his heart still, proving Ayaan's account correct.
Personal subjective experience is poor evidence for the existence of an objective God. Faith is a vice, not a virtue.
I don't think Dawkins HAS been unkind. Just honest. And quite gentle at that.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I totally agree.
Glen, this was fantastic. Really. You weave such a compelling and insightful case. Great stuff :)
Glad you enjoyed it
Glen sometimes looks impressive when he completely controls the narrative. He looks pitiful when he has a worthy debate opponent.
@@whittfamily1 have you seen Glen debate Matt Dillahunty? I thought that was hugely impressive. And Glen's insights are often compelling and thought provoking IMHO
@@martindavies1699 Frankly, I'm not sure if I saw that debate. But in general, when I have seen Glen I have never been impressed by him.
@@whittfamily1 th-cam.com/video/B3-sjyDYO2I/w-d-xo.html
Love the Emmaus road analogy. That’s me, too. Thank you Glen
That is a story of mistaken identity and wishful thinking.
Dawkins is deluding himself (or is being deluded) if he thinks he believes nothing. That is absurd. You have to believe in only matter and motion as well. You have to believe in only atoms and quarks and spin. You have to believe in that worldview.
Thank God for this woman's humility. God grant her strength in her journey to getting to know her Lord Jesus more and more every day.
She was being gracious to Dawkins giving him an out. She knows full well that "agreeing to disagree" is a Christian stance and that he sounds like a fool in not recognizing that you can not weigh Love. She wasn't trying to make him look foolish, she came at it with grace. He made himself look that way.
Ali said Dawkins believes nothing. This was a straw man. Of course, Dawkins believes many things. He believes evolution is real. He just doesn't believe that God exists.
@@whittfamily1 I think she meant he (thinks he) believes in nothing but the "material world". The fact that he has to believe in something (make assumptions) just in order to operate as a human in the world was kind of my point. He doesn't EXAMINE what he believes which is a whole different ball of wax. :)
@@danatowne5498 DT: I think she meant he (thinks he) believes in nothing but the "material world".
GW: Well, if that is what she meant, then I wish she would have clearly said it. He might think that, and if he does, I think I would disagree with that position. I would say that I believe in the material world because it has been proven, but I don’t yet believe in the spiritual world (whatever that may be) because it has not been proven. The spiritual world (deities, ghosts, spirits, souls, etc.?) may exist, but we don’t have good reasons to conclude that.
DT: The fact that he has to believe in something (make assumptions) just in order to operate as a human in the world was kind of my point.
GW: That’s a rather trivial point, IMO. What human being does not have beliefs? Of course we have beliefs! It is just that some beliefs are true and some are false. Some are rational and some are irrational. Some are proven and some are not. Some lead to bad behavior and some lead to good behavior. All beliefs are not created equal, not even close. For example, the belief “God exists” is irrational, unproven, and false. We now know this.
DT: He doesn't EXAMINE what he believes which is a whole different ball of wax.:)
GW: Of course he examines what he believes! How did you get the silly idea that he doesn’t? He examines his beliefs and the beliefs of others.
Love "solidsism" and the analogy. Going to start using this in conversation with my skeptic/atheistic friends and try to help get it infused into our standard English vocabulary.
"Solidism" is a red herring. I am an atheist and I do not believe that everything that exists is necessarily physical material. For example, thoughts seem to be real too. However, there is no good evidence or proof for such things as deities, angels, ghosts, souls, or an afterlife.
Thanks for this very helpful analysis. What an amazing story. Praise God.
Brilliant commentary thank you.
Terrible commentary. Glenn needs a worthy debate opponent. He is all over the place in his irrationality.
Thank you. A breath of fresh air. Among his bad arguments Professor Dawkins has one very good one: that a belief is useful for society or personally helpful does not make it any more true. CS Lewis develops it very convincingly in his essay ‘Man or Rabbit?’. Of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali didn’t suggest that it did.
Time-stamp
7:55, 8:15, 9:04 - Alex O’Connor
10:10 - clash between right brain and left brain
11:04 - believing in nothing or something.
11:46, 13:18 - what would it take to believe in God?
47:18, 47:35 - the horrible impact of new atheism
48:18 - when you say there is nothing, you offer them nothing.
59:10, 1:00:00 - Alex O’Connor is cooking
1:00:27 - Unpacking what Alex said
What would it take to believe in God? If God did exist, he would present himself objectively to ALL PERSONS AT THE SAME TIME, regularly. Wouldn't that be sufficient?
The moment Richard said, why should atheism offer you anything why should the universe offer you anything, he has now rendered everything meaningless, which means why does he open his mouth because it is meaningless, that's the beauty of God, god offers you everything, now everything becomes meaningful, now everything has value.
You are just misunderstanding him. (I don't think he explained that point very well.) The universe is not a person; it does not care about us humans. There is no person pulling the strings of the universe who cares about us. For example, if God did exist, he would have cared about us and prevented the Holocaust. But it occurred. Duh. Thus, God does not exist.
I am just an undergraduate senior, but i think I can arguement against solipism that cuts off the circular reasoning of that position. Quite frankly, there's an 'elegant' low level proof of the outside world world beyond your conscious will and pteference than to think of *any* time something has not gone according to your personal plan. There's a quite visceral example of idipendent minds and independent value structures if you get involved in a traffic accident with oncoming traffic because neither of you relented to traffic signals. It's necessarily insufficient to "write" away a solution. if mercifully, you come out physically unscathed. You still have to account for your perceptions of failing you.
A thorough-going solipsist can say, even after the car crash, "Every experience of the car crash was something perceived within my own consciousness. And there's no theory, no value, no experiment, no perception-not even a failure of perception-which you can bring to me that I do not experience within my own consciousness. You might have chosen to believe in this unbelievably grandiose metaphysical speculation called 'an external world'. All I know for certain is the "I" that knows. Everything else is unproveable and doesn't deserve to be called true."
Brilliant!
Good discussion by Ali and Dawkins, but terrible commentary by Glenn.
@@whittfamily1 I didn't pay much attention. I think *SHE* is brilliant.
@@ingela_injeela She is brilliant, but unfortunately she is wrong.
@@whittfamily1 You don't know Jesus yet, my friend. Just wait til you do. It changes *everything* . Because it's not a religion. It's a *relationship* .
@@ingela_injeela My friend, Jesus is dead. So you can't know Jesus now and you can't have a relationship with him. Get real! However, I know a great deal about Jesus, probably more than you. Christianity is a religion, not a relationship.
This is the best Christian channel on TH-cam
Yes, Dawkins Christianity does completely change the universe . Yes it creates personal comfort but it also fully changes perspective on math, physics, science and how fantastic it will be to fully know the author of it all. Christians will have an eternity to learn it all and the fascination will be endless.
Most Christian’s r going to hell to unfortunately. I hope your the exception. Peace
You are begging the question about an "author."
@@whittfamily1 well seeing as the author is my set premise that I already have all the proof I need for Him. I really don’t see a need to provide proof for other people especially YT comment philosophers. I have already come to my conclusion. As well as Ayaan. Have a blessed day.
@@awholelottawords1536 AL1: well seeing as the author is my set premise that I already have all the proof I need for Him.
GW1: There is no proof that God exists. In fact, there are numerous proofs that he doesn’t.
AL1: I really don’t see a need to provide proof for other people especially YT comment philosophers.
GW1: I am challenging you to prove your belief that God exists, so now you have a moral duty to make the attempt. This is called “the burden of proof.”
AL1: I have already come to my conclusion. As well as Ayaan.
GW1: Yes, you have both come to a false conclusion.
AL1: Have a blessed day.
GW1: There is nobody to bless us. You should audition of the “Handmaid’s Tale.” You’ve got the trope down.
@@whittfamily1 lol. Did the computer type out those words or did you? Or do you need both? If you’re looking for God in a test tube you won’t find him. No amount of philosophical flaunting will help your case. Picking apart YT comments seems exhausting I hope you find the rest you desperately need.
I guess Dawkins can’t imagine encountering anything “greater and higher than myself”, as Aayan has.
Of course he can! Gravity is greater. The electromagnetic force is greater. Einstein was greater. Darwin was greater. Dawkins just does not believe your "higher power" exists. Besides we now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
Correction: there's no such thing as junk DNA.
Evidence?
The one thing I really pray for is for Dawkins too to convert...thst will be big
Yes and I hope he comes to faith through science, not in spite of it.
Everyday many Christians are converting to secular humanism. This is a wonderful trend, and it will continue.
She "chooses" to believe.
Big difference from actually believing.
Not really
@@HearGodsWord Can you choose not to believe?
So, you choose to believe even though it may not be true?
@@DaveZee823 you didn't show the supposed big difference, but then there really isn't.
@@HearGodsWord You failed to answer my question. Give it a try. Did you CHOOSE to believe or DO YOU BELIEVE?
@@DaveZee823 you failed to show what the big difference was supposed to be.
"The world is charged with the grandeur of God" William Blake
But Daniel, God does not exist, and this has now been proven.
@@whittfamily1 I'm correcting the citation. Why are you telling me this?
Attribution rather
@@danielmaher964 Daniel, I am motivated to tell the truth. Nothing wrong with that. God does not exist, and this has been proven. Deal with it!
@@whittfamily1 you are a weird kind of evangelical
“When the mind works on the mind, how can anything but confusion result?” (Zen saying)
The problem of reflection if materialism is true. You can’t get behind the axioms .
Around 1978, Dr. Robert A. Kraft, a Wheaton College Graduate School alumnus who had become an atheist and an accomplished biblical scholar, was a guest speaker at the graduate school. I talked with him after his lecture. He asked me, "If you had to choose between God and truth, which would you choose? I responded, "I would choose God, and by doing that, I believe I would gain truth, grace, and much more."
That was a trick question. Here is the proper one: "If you had to choose between truth and falsehood, which would you choose?" I would choose truth. The truth is that God does not exist, and this has been proven. From what I have read, everday a higher percentage of theists become atheists than atheists become theists. So the trend favors atheism, and this is a good thing.
Richard Dawkins wonderfully channelling his inner ‘so what you’re saying is…’ spirit. A kingdom divided against itself is doing its very best to stand “push harder!”.
That clip of Dawkins and Peter Boghossian is insane. Dawkins is a blind believing religious fanatic for naturalism. His unashamedly circular reasoning is truly something to behold
No. I think you are just misunderstanding Dawkins. I could be mistaken but I think Dawkins accepts materialism because there is good evidence for it, whereas there is no good evidence for spiritual things.
I find it a bit odd that no one on the panel mentioned the fact that atheism by itself isn't a religion, moral philosophy or world view, but a rejection of a single claim, which is the idea that a (supernatural) god or gods exist. So in that particular sense, Richard is indeed correct to say that atheism doesn't owe you any comfort, solace or moral guidance. But to be fair, his real point was that he cares about what's objectively true, above anything else. He'd rather see the world (as close to) how it is, not as anyone would like it to be. Personally, I think that's a solid way of thinking, because it keeps you from bullshitting yourself, believing in things just because they make you feel better. Furthermore, as many religious people do, Ayaan seems to compartmentalize her faith and only take the parts she deems to be moral (through a 21st-century lens) onboard, while discarding the ideas, parts most modern people would find, shall we say, less appealing or convincing. Finally, personal anecdotes, however heartfelt, aren't going to convince any rational, objective skeptic. What you need is good, solid, reliable evidence, even more so if the claim includes the supernatural. So until that's done, as far as gods go, atheism seems to be the default position.
Excellent analysis. I nominate you to debate Glenn.
@@whittfamily1 Cheers, appreciate that. Which Glenn, btw? I live under a rock. 🫣
@@quickbrown-f0x It is Glen Scrivener, the commentator on the debate. I apologize to Glen for misspelling his first name however.
@@whittfamily1 Ah, right. Sorry for not catching that.
Who died and made this little man the arbiter of what constitutes a “decent” religion?
Exactly.. “by what standard?” Is what came to my mind.
And he’s turning many to hell with him, unfortunately.
Christianity is not a decent religion since it is almost entirely false.
In the US, we used to have Selective Service, also called the draft, which required some young men to perform military duties. Selective Service was devised by minds. Why should natural selection not be understood to have been devised by a mind?
The idea of natural selection was devised by a mind -- the mind of Charles Darwin. But there is no good evidence that the orderliness in nature was designed by any mind.
Praise God for His work in Ayaan 😊
Sorry Harry. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
So she prays to something and feels a response that she ascribes to god. Could that something be the Islamic god? If it's the Christian god then she's had 18 months to know that she must also believe in Jesus' ministry, resurrection and being born of a virgin. Oh yes and also that Jesus is god. Anything else and she's not a regular Christian, just a theist.
Ali may now be a Christian, although we weren't provided with enough information to judge this. However, Christianity is mostly false and nonsensical. Most people don't know that Ali was "saved" by secular humanists. It's ironic that she has now rejected them.
Don’t worry about the teachings of Christianity,if you can’t agree .we have to see the greatness of Christ.the most earth shaking teaching He gave is “ love your neighbour as thyself “ this is the most miraculous teaching ! This taught Lincoln to say malice towards none and charity for all.this love has forced us to see all others as our brothers and sisters.this love stopped wars,discrimination,ill treatments,slavery, violence,exploitation and persecution.this love has inspired millions to forget about their comfortable life,home,dear ones and native place and against all odds going to distant places to alleviate the suffering and pain of others.again this love has inspired many to kneel down and clean the ecreta and the stinking wounds of millions of patients all over the world. If Christ can achieve this much I think I can believe He is God.
Jesus also taught that God exists, and he was mistaken. Another time he was mistaken was when he forgave the adulterous woman. Another time he was mistaken is when he ignored and disparaged his own mother. Jesus was not all he was cracked up to be, even in the unreliable stories about him. Besides, God does not exist, and this has been proven.
Richard intensely dislikes the "Why" question, he says "Why is a stupid question and does not deserve an answer" Yet whenever he meets a Christian he asks "Why are you a Christian? "Why are you, not a Muslim.? I wish for once they would respond with "Why is a stupid question and does not deserve an answer"
Brilliant
When something could have been other than what it is, then the "why" question is appropriate. But sometimes things could not have been otherwise, then the "why" question is irrelevant. Example of the latter: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Example of the former: "Why are you a theist rather than an atheist?"
I remember watching the Reason Rally video, where Richard told the crowd to mock Christianity. Then this year he said I like to think of himself as a "Cutral Christian" Richard "We have secular humanism and we have rationalism and moral philosophy, that is how we decide which bits of Christianity we like and which bits we don't like. We Cherry Pick! Cherry Picking is something he has accused Christian of doing
Yes, Richard was mistaken on a few points, but overall he is on the right track, unlike Ali.
Richard is like the ol boy down the pub.....still sitting in the same seat at bar....saying the same clever answers.... that mean nothing at all
Oh, I totally disagree. Most of his answers were outstanding. I especially liked it when he said that he believed that Ali was now indeed a Christian and Christianity is nonsense. Great answer!
Ms Hirsi Ali grew up in the faith and she had to return to it, only to a religion that suits her better.
My wife is also ex Muslim and she sometimes feels the same withdrawal symptoms. Would it not be nice if life had a perspective beyond death?
It's different when you grow up without religion like I did.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Wish Fulfillment: 6-21-2024
1. Human persons believe that any thing Z exists either because there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Z or there is not sufficient evidence for Z but they wish that Z would exist. This is a psychological fact about human nature..
2. Some human persons believe that God exists.
3. There is not sufficient evidence that God exists.
4. Therefore, the human persons who do believe that God exists do so because they wish that God would exist.
5. But if God did exist, there would be sufficient evidence that he does exist. He would provide it.
6. Therefore, God does not exist even though some people believe that he does.
@@whittfamily1 Did you come up with this? It sounds logical but I fear point #5 is not compelling. God might act in mysterious ways for unknown reasons. For example, he may stay hidden to test people.
In addition, some people subjectively feel that God heard them or worked something in their lives and they are prepared to accept this evidence. It is just not demonstrable and repeatable in scientific sense.
Up to #4 it clearly applies to Ms HIrsi Ali.
@@erikt1713 ET1: Did you come up with this?
GW1: Yes, this is my newest argument.
ET1: It sounds logical but I fear point #5 is not compelling.
GW1: Point #5 is rational and correct, even if it is not compelling to you. But tell me why you don’t find it compelling.
ET1: God might act in mysterious ways for unknown reasons.
GW1: Maybe in some cases, but not in this case. Because God would all-powerful and perfectly moral, he would present himself to ALL OF US SIMULTANEOUSLY, on a regular basis. If you think not, then make your case.
ET1: For example, he may stay hidden to test people.
GW1: No. He might test people, but not by hiding himself. He would clearly show himself, and then he might give us an ethical code and then test us to see if we would comply or not.
ET1: In addition, some people subjectively feel that God heard them or worked something in their lives and they are prepared to accept this evidence.
GW1: It is evidence of a certain type. It is subjective anecdotal evidence, but it is not sufficient objective evidence for the existence of God. We know what that would be, if God did exist.
ET1: It is just not demonstrable and repeatable in scientific sense. Up to #4 it clearly applies to Ms HIrsi Ali.
GW1: Yep. Nobody should accept Ali’s claim that God exists. She has reached that conclusion through insufficient evidence and wishful thinking. Even I wish that God did exist! I just don’t believe he does. In fact, I know he doesn’t.
Richard Dawkins response to Aayan is a rather disconnected line of thought, and inability to understand others
Richard was given The Sign of Jonah! 🙏🏼😁🥹❤⚔️🛡️⛪️
Richard gave Ali the sign of Reason.
@@whittfamily1He does not seem reasonable, he deliberately tries to be only cerebral in these discussions, no higher abstraction. ChatGPT is more reasonable. He looks very religious, very soulish, and very spiritual, the wrong spirit though. Btw, I agree with his view that original sin doctrine from traditional institutional churches does not seem reasonable, but why does a supposedly reasonable man choose profanity and mockery to articulate his views? Because he walks following the wrong spirit.
@@joovervaldivia2633 He? Which he are you talking about here? There are several. Are you referring to Richard Dawkins?
@@whittfamily1Which one do you BELIEVE I’m talking about? 🤔
@@joovervaldivia2633 I'm not going to guess. You made the claim, and so you should tell us whom you were talking about. Duh.
How do you get from nothing to synapses firing in your brain? Gestalt psychology: "Tree. Other Tree. Different Tree...Forest!"
Sorry, but something (including synapses) cannot come from nothing, never has, never will. There is no need for a creator of the universe. God has lost another job. He can't seem to hold a job.
I went into this with an open mind but the second she saw a therapist who diagnosed her with "spiritual bankruptcy" I had to shut off. There is no evidence that spiritual bankruptcy is a thing. The 12 step programme which is based on the idea of spiritual bankruptcy has very poor results. Jim Orford found that it worked for about 20-30% of cases of which some of these individuals would have been successful without because spontaneous remission happens in cases. St Agustine himself said it would only work in a small amount of individual cases.
Americans have the worst alcohol addiction crisis in the first world statistically and yet are the most christian of these countries.
In his book Holy anorexia, Rudolph Bell demonstrated that therapies based on the 12 step programme with addicted personalities are suspect to become addicted to religion instead of alcohol based on the programme. This has led to dangerous results such as individuals in the catholic inquisition, the life of certain saints and the protestant witch hunts.
I worked in the substance abuse field for 23 years, and your observations here are right on.
Is any one aware that Dawkins has never published a research paper since his PhD dissertation. He is not a scientist. He does not practice science. He speaks and writes about incoherent Philosophy. He has been told repeatedly that evolution and origin of life are not the same thing and he still confuses them. This is not a smart rational logical man. He is a very well spoken, well educated, blind fool who constantly contradicts himself.
And yet, Dawkins is correct on nearly everything he says. He is a very smart, educated, articulate, rational, and ethical man. I don't think he fully realizes, however, that God does not exist, and this has been proven.
Is Richard Dawkins famous as a scientist. I've never heard of him as a scientist. If he were not a crusading atheist, would any of us know about him?
Crusading isn't a word I would use on Dick Dawkins. He is a selfish, knowledgeless atheist who criticize religion without specification
Oh yes, Dawkins is a well known and respected evolutionary biologist. What rock have you been hiding under for the last 30 years?
@@whittfamily1 I would suggest that if you were to do a survey on the street, you would most likely find that most people who even know of Richard Dawkins will know of him because of books like "The God Delusion" but would know very little about his scientific work. I contend that he likes the publicity and notoriety that he receives as a crusading atheist and that may mar his objectivity.
@@timothyjordan5731 TJ2: I would suggest...
GW2: You would suggest or you do suggest?
TJ2: that if you were to do a survey on the street, you would most likely find that most people who even know of Richard Dawkins will know of him because of books like "The God Delusion" but would know very little about his scientific work.
GW2: Maybe, maybe not. His first book “The Selfish Gene” was very popular.
TJ2: I contend that he likes the publicity and notoriety that he receives as a crusading atheist and that may mar his objectivity.
GW2: There is nothing wrong with liking publicity and notoreity for doing ethical activities, as in the case of Dawkins. He is very objective. Ali is very subjective.
When Alex says "it's almost comical" I think he is tipping his hand. I don't think he means comical in the sense of "happy, opposed to tragedy." It shows the arrogance of the atheist; these things are comical in that a child could understand them and, as such, they cannot be true.
Children sometimes believe false propositions. It takes Reason to sort the true from the false.
Who’s Imago Crist that Mary refers to as being a guest on unherd?
Iain McGilchrist. Doctor, researcher, author. Lovely man. :)
The video is one great example of confirmation bias to me. Watched this video immediately after the original debate and I was shocked by some misrepresentations of what happened there. Very sad(
Yes, Glenn's commentary was horrible.
When you talk about ignoring the wise and believing like children your talking about gullibility. And that is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become, gullible.
Dawkins = Does'nt want to get it.
Maybe he started to get it, but didn't like what he saw.
Dawkins = already got it. Ali = still hasn't gotten it.
I think Dawkins' response was right on the money. She'd created an uncomfortable moment by making it incredibly personal, deflecting away from mentioning the core absurdities in Christianity, and set up a situation where it would look distasteful to actually challenge her on her claim to be a Christian now. Nothing in her personal story confirmed that she's a Christian, just that she reached out and felt like she connected to something. She could have tagged on the end that she's now a Muslim or Buddhist and it wouldn't have made any more or less sense than her saying she's now a Christian. Dawkins was just making it clear what being a Christian actually involves believing in.
There is no way you can believe in Christianity if your worldview is materialism. Once you understand materialism is an incoherent worldview, you start to look at the world with new eyes. The claims of Christianity are wild but they are historical and they are true. Reality is far more than we ever imagined.
Christianity is trusting Christ.
Check this out and tell me what you think: Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Wish Fulfillment: 6-21-2024
1. Human persons believe that any thing Z exists either because there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Z or there is not sufficient evidence for Z but they wish that Z would exist. This is a psychological fact about human nature..
2. Some human persons believe that God exists.
3. There is not sufficient evidence that God exists.
4. Therefore, the human persons who do believe that God exists do so because they wish that God would exist.
5. But if God did exist, there would be sufficient evidence that he does exist. He would provide it.
6. Therefore, God does not exist even though some people believe that he does.
55:22 Dawkins: "you appear to be a theist". Richard, how does a material brain recognize the appearance of theism? Since the material universe can't step outside of itself (by definition), it therefore can't conceive of things like gods. An odd catch 22. This must be why people like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say a material cosmology can't account for consciousness.
Oh, the answer is rather simple. Thoughts are an emergent phenomenon of brains. Just a brute fact.
@@whittfamily1 here's the fundamental brute fact. Material cosmology says you're wrong. For consciousness to "emerge", the material universe must step outside of itself - impossible by definition. This is as likely to happen as a circle being square. Material cosmology says a brain can't even recognize illusions of consciousness.
Very weird, but not surprising, to be repeating myself.
@@gregorytoews8316 GT1: here's the fundamental brute fact. Material cosmology says you're wrong.
GW1: Material cosmology doesn’t say anything because it is not a person. But what do you think I am wrong about?
GT1: For consciousness to "emerge", the material universe must step outside of itself - impossible by definition.
GW1: No, it need not do that. There is no “stepping outside of itself.” Material brains just produce consciousness. We don’t yet know how this happens or why it happens or if we could ever know. Right now it is just a brute fact. This is sometimes known as “the hard problem of consciousness.”
GT1: This is as likely to happen as a circle being square.
GW1: False. A circle cannot be a square. That is logically impossible. But a brain could generate or produce consciousness. That is logically and metaphysically possible.
GT1: Material cosmology says a brain can't even recognize illusions of consciousness.
GW1: False. Consciousness is not an illusion. Even DesCartes said “I think, therefore I am.” He was on the right track.
1:03 - Christ Saved me. HE'S ALIVE.
HE IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD.
1:25 - Many have. i am one regarding His Glory etc.
The Vickar of Dibley sealed it for me . Many different ,colorful characters make up the small sheepy farming town of Dibley .
One day they wake up and their church has a female vickar (Dawn French), which most thought was absolutely proposterous. This made it hard for the new Vickar .( Apparently a few of the older men in the village found it quite hard too ...wink wink)
...But rather than shy away from the initial resentment by ,she persists, uniting the townsfolk to become a bright light in the community - C'mon Richard , Only God could write a show like that..Surely !
( Do please note - Comment may contain spoonarisms ,fork n word cutlery and other sharp /blunt utensils often effective in the combat of oxy mororns , mounting depression and in some cases.. lamb soup).
Why did you dodge the very important point that Dawkins made - the moral framework that we have also makes us cherry pick Christianity, our morals do not need religion to exist and be developed further. Some aspect of other religions are more moral then Christianity and we had Greek moral philosophy long before Christianity.
Some of us can and do cherry pick Christianity for our moral code, but we don't need to do that. We can devise a proper moral code through reason and compassion.
There is no clash. There is only Dawkins.
I think Dawkins did extremely well in this discussion. I admire him.
I like the idea of a few people I admire to unite.
Living in Love that can not be ever captured
Knowing every atom that creates the matter of Love but never loving love or not want to watch loved ones dance
Stroke joke
What is the matter with the world !!!!!
The world is full of matter !!!!!!!!
I love both
I love his non stop request and search for truth.
He is wanting to know
She was so beautiful
What’s beauty ?
Your poetry, no matter how beautiful you feel it is, still does not change the fact that God does not exist. This has been proven.
@@whittfamily1
Wich God are you talking about ?
Did you like the poetry ?
Thanks so much for commenting kindly
I’m very stupid and emotional so I really love your comment.
Poetry and riddles are supposed to get the frontal cortex dismantling words into multi past emotions for thinking.
Can you please give some things to do so I get better understanding
My impression is that they disagree about what Truth is and until that discussed (Not necessarily agreed upon) openly, I would argue talking about any topics, let alone fundamental topics such as God, atheism, faith, reason etc. is going to be difficult with any perspicacity.
For example, if Truth is exclusively what is empirically verifiable (ignoring Quine for now) , then philosophy, metaphysics and theology (and maybe maths?) become 'useless' concepts (or language games?). But, if Truth is expanded to included more elements e.g. 1st person experience or immaterial objects (consciousness, maths, forms) or whatever, then maybe it is possible to talk about theology?
Coming from different concepts of Truth seems to me to lead to the moment Dawkins all but dismisses Ali's story of depression and redemption with the statement 'but do you believe in the virgin birth?' I am not sure Dawkins would be very happy to let in Truth beyond the scientific, which is a position that does have some attractive qualities...
I am thinking out loud here so please have mercy on me comments section.
I think that's very much behind what Ayaan says: "I believe there is something, you do not believe there is something." It's why I make the comparison with solipsism. While-ever Richard clings to a kind of logical positivism, he will never be able to hear the truth claims of Christianity (or, to be honest, any metaphysic other than scientism).
You say "Truth is expanded to included more elements", yes it must be in everything including science. Dawkins should be able to see the Truth of God in science.
When Ali says "I now believe God exists," this is probably true. But when anyone says "God exists" this is not true. This is false. It has now been proven that God does not exist.
@@whittfamily1 That's great news. Can you link me to the proof? I haven't seen the proof myself, and I'd like to square the God question away, to be honest (I know too many evangelicals to pass up this opportunity).
As an armature composer and Bach enthusiast, Dawkins' "Well, it's neurology" was sincerly painful. To me, music is just as real a means of sensing God as drinking tea is a means of sensing Twinings Earl Grey. A man can feel free - in his trip of logical consistency - to dismiss both God and Earl Grey, but such is a standpoint towards rationality that I do not covet.
Also, the Irishman interviewing Dawkins immediately made me think of Donnal and Connal and it was bueatiful.
Life is a mystery reguardless
Music is not a means of sensing God. Ah, God does not exist, and this has been proven. Music exists, and this has been proven also.
She just equated white western atheist Gaza protesters as being Islamist? I think I know what she’s all about now.
G’day Glen, an issue I have with Dawkins is that he shows little application of political science to the fundamental totalitarian political nature of theism as a socio-political ordering principle. He acknowledges the alleged Abrahamic god is a dictator but doesn’t follow that observation through and expand on the major flaw in Abrahamic religion as an ordering principle, that it is inherently an authoritarian ordering principle political ideology that governs by totalitarianism.
Having been a politician, Ali, as she stated in this discussion, has an understanding of the totalitarian nature of the authoritarian political ideology that is Islam, yet she seems to be blind to the fact that all three Abrahamic religions have this authoritarian and totalitarian political ideology. It’s not just Islam. Christianity has spent most of its political existence as a totalitarian ordering principle and only in recent centuries has it been forced into an accommodation with modern democracy and been stripped of much, but by no means not all, of its practical political power.
Ali is correct when she says Islam is a totalitarian political ideology. But so is Christianity, and Judaism, which she doesn’t seem to recognise.
Because he doesn’t bring much political science to bear, Dawkins asks the wrong question. He should ask Ali something like - You know why you don’t want to breath air poisoned by the totalitarianism of Islamic authoritarianism, so why do you want to breath air poisoned by the totalitarianism of Christian authoritarianism?
It appears Ali is mistaking Western liberal social democracy for Christianity. It shouldn’t take her too much study, given her background as a politician in a liberal social democracy, to realise that democracy is not a Christian concept and Christianity is not democratic. The largest identifier of Western society is not religion, it is liberal social democracy, a fact which apologists don’t like to acknowledge, instead asserting that our major values are of Christian origin, when they are not as the West of today borrowed much of its values from the Pagans who came before Christianity. How can democracy be a fruit of Christianity when democracy was created 500 years before Christianity was created?
My father didn’t fight against Fascists in WW2 for Christianity. In that war, non-Christian liberal social democrats like my father and Christian liberal social democrats fought together against Fascists who were mostly Christians, to defend, protect and advance liberal social democracy. What united them was the superiority of liberal social democracy as a socio-political ordering principle compared to Fascism. They were not united by Christianity. My father did not fly on a wing and a prayer, though he knew many around him were doing that. He said he flew on a wing (10%) and his flying skill (10%) and good luck (80%) of not being in the wrong piece of air at the wrong time. Yes, there are not only atheists in foxholes, there are atheists in cockpits.
Be it Christo-fascism or Islamo- fascism or Marxist communism, it’s totalitarianism and it poisons the air we breathe.
The team Ali is looking for as a bulwark against team Islam is the one staring her in the face, the one she has been professionally part of, despite its flaws - team liberal social democracy, a secular and humanist ideology that is inclusive of people of different world views.
Team liberal social democracy brought Christianity to a political accommodation with democracy and liberal social democracy has to do that with team Islam and is having a good go of it in the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, though there is still a way to go yet before Indonesia generally catches up to the West in terms of liberal social democracy. Everyday Muslims whom I know, want to live in peace and prosperity and have come to know that the best chance of that is with liberal social democracy, not with exchanging the authoritarianism of Islam with the authoritarianism of Christianity. The voting people do with their feet is instructive.
Dawkins doesn’t seem to understand, or has trouble articulating, that it is not a choice of only two religious ordering principles. There is another, the one that he actually lives and breathes in and has voted for across the decades since he reached voting age, liberal social democracy which is secular and humanist and inclusive of people of different world views.
Abortion isn't murder? Some abortions could be considered murder? How I'd like to pick apart Dawkins' stand on this issue.
" I feel connected to a higher power" ?? Is proof of being born again??
It's truly remarkable how casually Dawkins dismisses Christianity when he knows almost nothing about it.
To the contrary, Dawkins knows a great deal about Christianity. He knows more than most people know about it. He knows enough to know it is mostly false or nonsensical.
@whittfamily1 the NWO loves smug atheist. Are you vaccinated?
@@whittfamily1 how did you reach that conclusion?
@@wishingwell12345 By studying Dawkins for years! I have read many of his books and watched many videos of him. I go further than Dawkins. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 don't be silly, no such thing has been proven. If you think Dawkins is an expert you are still on the lowest rung of the ladder.
Glen you do a brilliant job showing that God’s existence is evident by beauty, morality , consciousness and the laws of nature but dismiss the evidence Dawkins is looking for In the science of creation? Is that because you believe Evolution has given us the natural explanation for the diversity of life from the first simple creature to all creatures? A belief in evolution was a major stumbling block for me in my early Christian years. But because I see now that evolution is a feeble scientific explanation I can see that creation shouts as evidence for God and I agree with Dawkins when he says “the idea that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is a dramatic important idea… it’s a big thing…it’s bigger than personal comfort and nice stories”. Hopefully he will be persuaded by biological science someday.
False. Neither you nor Glenn yet know that God does not exist and this has been proven. Keep exploring and you will find out.
"I've met a few" haha
I agree that Dawkins doesn't have what you call a scalable worldview, but he's always been philosophically shallow. However, there are more philosophically robust ways of thinking about existence that scale and also have no God, at least in the conventionally religious sense.
"God" is conventionally religious. There are other deities who are not conventionally religious. But they are all hypothetical. None has been proven to exist.
I’m not sure I get what you’re saying.
@@jacobvictorfisher Which part of what I said do you not understand? Be specific.
I dont think Glen knows the meaning of the word "solipsism". And also I think its easy to watch a video , pause it again and again and present strawmen / mischaracterizations of someone's arguments and respond with guffaws and head shaking and counter arguments which often miss the point ( though I admit he does make some good points). I like Glen and Ive seen and enjoyed many of his debates and presentations. But here he comes across as a bit smug.
Im gonna go and rewatch his his debate with Bart Ehrman, during which, if I remember correctly, Mr Ehrman absolutely smokes him.
In that comment, you're actually guilty of things you accuse Glen of. Quite ironic.
@@HearGodsWord Which things?
A bit smug? No, he comes off as greatly smug. So arrogant, closed minded, and mocking.
@@whittfamily1 sounds like you're describing yourself.
@@HearGodsWord Nope. I am describing Glenn.
Could these laws express part of the nature of God?
They certainly suggest a law-giver, of a certain 'covenantal' character.
They could, but there is no good reason to believe they do. Possibility is neither probability nor certainty.
Most of people denied God base on their personal brokenness either from childhood or where they are, and it is dangerous to fall and try to live their life based on their individual brokenness, the best is for one to open up to Christ and help those still living in their brokeness ,bring the Truth and Hope Who is Jesus Christ our Hope of Glory
May God protect and increase Hirsi in the knowledge of Christ, because Christ is real, may God give Richard personal experience of Himsef(Christ)
The problem with that is that God does not exist and Jesus is dead.
( ﾟーﾟ) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
The long, rich, and diverse history of Christianity makes room for a wide variety of propositional beliefs. Apart from the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man (forgive the traditionally metaphorical masculine language) as taught and embodied in the historical figure of Jesus, all such propositions are what William James called over-beliefs, which he also said were the most interesting aspects of religious faith.
Interesting hardly means true. We now know that God does not exist.
you are the kind of person who doesn't even read the whole book of the selfish gene and pretend to undertand it only by looking at the name of the book. The selfish gene says the exact opposite of what you think.
We have been tailoring religion to fit our psychological and social cohesion needs for thousands of years already, they have been the main source of cultural identity and popular knowledge until the last few centuries. Of course it has to feel comforting and provide a sense of hope to the majority of people; that's how we made it to be. Just like we built cities to live and thrive together, we built fantasies and illusions to face hard realities of life and death. Human intellect and imagination is our biggest asset, it has made us the dominant species of the planet by far. But, if our imagination runs amok it can also become our own demise, making us loose total connection with reality .
Excellent analysis. I think that secular humanism will become more appealing and will gradually replace the Abrahamic religions.
People with these brains and worldly wisdom must come to faith in Jesus Christ as did Ayaan-- then they will know. A natural man does not understand these things of the Spirit of God. It is a foreign language. It is the problem of pride . Come as a sinner to Jesus --then you will know . Personally it happened to me by saying these seven words , " God be merciful to me a sinner." Mine was a "on the road to Damascus to experience", It was a definite instant new birth. I went into the church as a lost on the road to hell sinner and came out gloriously free. I suddenly knew there was a God , especially God as Father as Jesus introduced me to the Father and the Holy Spirit introduced me to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Richard Dawkins will one day find out there is a real God . Indeed we pray that he might humble himself while still alive and receive the greatest love that ever will be. Is there a God? . Yes! i am proof along will millions of others who have experienced this so great salvation made available for us because we received the Christ and His redemption who died for us , was buried and rose again.. .
But here's the problem, Timothy: God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 The real problem is like this: If you were blind you would not know that anything existed since you could not see it. A blind person does know not by sight but by touch or by someone telling him.. Likewise your position is predicated upon a faith in whatever has been " proven" to you and you prefer to believe this, yet as a blind person you cannot prove this is true because you cannot see it.. The issue is this . The devil has blinded the minds of them that believe not lest the light of the good news of Jesus Christ should shine unto them. I do pray your eyes and heart will open to the light. You see you do not want to receive or believe the testimony of millions who are proof that God exists. and is so good and through His Son saves the sinner who comes to Him. . I am proof with millions of others.
@@timothystevens1924 TS: The real problem is like this: If you were blind you would not know that anything existed since you could not see it. A blind person does know not by sight but by touch or by someone telling him..
GW: That is a horrible analogy. The real problem is like this: If God did exist, then nobody would be “blind”. God would present himself to ALL PERSONS SIMULTANEOUSLY, at regular intervals, at least every seven years. Why can’t you understand this?
TS: Likewise your position is predicated upon a faith in whatever has been " proven" to you and you prefer to believe this, yet as a blind person you cannot prove this is true because you cannot see it.
GW: That is pure nonsense! I have no faith. I abhor faith. Faith is a vice. I accept propositions which have been proven, like “God does not exist.” Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is the way to act in the world.
TS: The issue is this . The devil has blinded the minds of them that believe not lest the light of the good news of Jesus Christ should shine unto them.
GW: There is no good evidence or proof that a devil exists. The Good News is that the devil does not exist! Jesus is dead. He is no longer “shining”. If you carefully read the stories about him, you will see a lot of flaws.
TS: I do pray your eyes and heart will open to the light.
GW: Pray all you want. But as Dan Barker has said, “Nothing fails like prayer.” God does not exist to hear your prayers. You are talking to the wind.
TS: You see you do not want to receive or believe the testimony of millions who are proof that God exists.
GW: Nonsense! There is no proof that God exists. In fact, there are many proofs that God does not exist. The millions of people who think God exists, like you, are just mistaken. Don’t misunderstand me - I wish that God did exist. The world would be so much better. But sadly, he doesn’t. This is clear as can be. Just consider the Holocaust. That should be enough.
TS: and is so good and through His Son saves the sinner who comes to Him.
GW: Nope. If God did exist, he would have no sons or daughters. He would employ no messengers, prophets, or angels. He would do the communicating himself. Duh.
TS: I am proof with millions of others.
GW: You are not proof that God exists. You are just another little fallible and mistaken human being. You lack humility in the face of the unknown and the known. We now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 Well ! I am not your convincer so let's leave it at that.
@@timothystevens1924 How could you convince me that God exists when God does not exist? Use of deception, trickery, or hoax?
He’s comes off very ignorant, despite being so smart.
Yes, Glenn comes off that way.
There is a huge amount of word salad spoken here. "Those who have faith have something that those without faith don't have" says AHA. (Ytuber nods, as if this is a profound statement.) This in no way means the things we believe are true. To be convinced of a proposition only when you are desperate or on your knees is a kind of coercion or manipulation. It is still all carrots and sticks. I am a materialist. Things that do not exist do not act in the mateial world. If God acts in this material world at all, it would be evident. Things that happen are evident, that is why empiricism works so well. Despite the cryptic critique of Dawkins, I stand with him. I suspect AHA does not actually believe the miracle claims and is more akin to a cultural Christian. In fact, either way, her conversion is matched by the next person who left faith for reason.
Lord Jesus is the only Lord Believe or not.
That's better than believing in God. God does not even exist, but Jesus did at one time.
I appreciate what you are trying to do with "solidcist" but "materialist" already exists, not sure a new word is needed.
Some materialists believe that physical stuff is the only stuff that exists, but others (I) believe that spiritual stuff has not been proven to exist and so we should not embrace it at this time.
I have no problem with modern secular moral philosophy, but you also cherry pick the Bible by exegesis and hermeneutics.
There is no need to cherry pick the Bible. We can ignore it and devise secular morality from the bottom up, using merely reason and compassion.
The "universe" offers Mamals BREASTS =comfort nutrition and love ...all in one
Like and comment for algorithm
Richard Dawkins completely affirmed the personal dimension of her experience yet he has a valid question. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm glad he asked it. And yet here you are mocking it. Again, Richard Dawkins altogether affirmed the personal dimension of her experience. After that affirmation he had a serious and sincere question. Your characterization of Richard Dawkins was ludicrous throughout your commentary. Of course Richard Dawkins has a profound sense of beauty and appreciation about life. Your cognitive bias was showing throughout your interruptive commentary. Your two-dimensional assessment of Richard Dawkins was just a mere superficial mockery of him. To me you just embarrassed yourself.
I had the same impression of Glenn. He wouldn't be so smug if he had a worthy debate opponent.