Maybe he likes it because that’s the type of country he was brought up in… if he was brought up in a Muslim country he would prefer Muslim culture despite not believing in it.
No Daniel. Why can't you take Richard Dawkins at what he says instead of trying to interpret it using your backwards and intellectually vapid opinion? All you are doing is twisting his words to fit your narrative. Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in your God - why would he convert to your religion? You have a poor argument, Daniel. I think if you talked to him about it, he'd tell you how wrong you are.
Good day @smequals, I believe you may have missed the point of my (slightly tongue in cheek) argument: my point is that if (as the studies show) conservative Christians are more likely to pass their genetic material onto the next generation and live longer and happier lives, and if - from a Naturalist point of view - what really matters is not whether your beliefs are true but whether they "work" to make one better adapted to the environment and contribute to "fitness" in a Darwinian sense, then Dawkins ought to convert regardless of the fact that he doesn't believe in God, as the logical conclusion of his own belief system. Of course that is a paradox, and my point is not that I think this argument will persuade him to convert, but that it points to what I see as an incongruence in his own position.
@@danielhixon8209 of course I missed your point Daniel, because your point is both absurd and lacks any understanding of Mr. Dawkins' point of view or how reality works. The claim that "conservative Christians are more likely to pass their genetic material onto the next generation and live longer and happier lives" needs citations, but also needs context. Compared to what - everyone else? Certainly I can show specific groups of people are happy. Hong Kong, Macao and Japan are the three countries with the longest average lifespans. How conservative Christian are those countries? So, your premise lacks any intellectual honesty or rigor. I suggest that you do better research and get your points in order. I don't think you understand naturalism. Basically, definition is: "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." You can agree with the definition or not, it's how it is normally used in this context. They way you describe it, beliefs don't matter, reproduction is all that matters. You've got that completely wrong. Beliefs DO matter. Talk to a naturalist sometime and they will tell you. Personally, I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Your god is one of the false things from all I can tell. I believe Dawkins in his numerous books has basically said the same thing over and over, so I don't know where you get the idea that he doesn't care about belief. Evolution is real, true, as proven a fact as gravity, whether you believe it or not. I don't know where you stand on it. I do think you understand evolution in the small amount you described it. Dawkins has been very clear on his position on evolution as well. Evolution has nothing to do with a god or gods. It also doesn't have anything to do with quality of the life we lead. It only has to do with reproduction and passing along genetic material from one population to another. When you take Dawkins out of context, which you clearly did here, you miss all of the context and nuance of what he is saying. He, like many people and myself included, appreciate the art, the culture, the beauty, the music, and the poetry of the human experience. Some of that has Christianity at its base. It's part of our history and our culture. There is a shit-ton of ugliness that has come from Christianity as well. He was basically saying that he has an appreciation for some of the things that has come from Christianity and would not want that to be wiped out or be replaced by another religion. And I agree. Not that I feel any god is real, or that the Christian God is real at all. But I can admire beautiful stained glass windows and cathedrals and music without believing in the god or joining or converting to the religion. So can Dawkins. And I'm not sure why you missed that. Ask me if I want to wipe out Christianity and I'd say no. I believe you should have the right to worship as you wish as long as it doesn't impede on my rights as well. You're fortunate you live somewhere that honors your right because many places do not. I don't want to see a religion of any kind take over countries by force, wipe out the religion that was there, and institute their own. History is replete with that kind of thing and it is disgusting and barbaric. It's how Christianity spread - not by joy but by bloodshed and death. It's how Islam spread too. I want that to never happen again. I think the logical conclusion for Dawkins is likely the same as it is for me. To appreciate life as we know it. To want to believe in true things and not false things. To live live to its fullest without people telling us what to think or how to think. And to pass along our genes and our knowledge to the next generation if possible so they can learn, grow and thrive. As far as I'm concerned, with that as the goal, there is no god required. You might think otherwise, but the burden of proof is on you. Until I have compelling and sufficient evidence for god's existence, I don't believe in a god. I think Dawkins is likely at the same place, but I don't speak for him. But I think that's the message in what he is saying. Why do you believe and what is your compelling and sufficient evidence?
@@smequals "Evolution is real, true, as proven a fact as gravity, whether you believe it or not." Correct! Even christians believe in evolution. Many of them believe that Noah story is true but argue that Noah took only "kinds" of animals, because otherwise it would be imposible to fit all two pairs of animals that we see in that boat. They argue that in 6,000 years all the "kinds" that Noah took evolved into the diversity that we have now. A sort of evolution on steroids. Of course, this is just an effort to make the story work.
@@danielhixon8209you are conflating the theory of evolution with social darwinism. The theory of evolution doesnt address what is right or wrong. It addresses changes in populations. This is evolution 101
@@danielhixon8209 There is absolutely no incongruity, or incoherence in Dawkins' view. I wouldn't expect an American to understand, as you have very little history and not much culture, but pretty much everyone in the UK and right across Europe is a cultural Christian. For the very simple reason that we are surrounded on all sides by more than a thousand years of Christian culture. It's completely unavoidable. Ralph Vaughan Williams was an agnostic socialist; probably everything you would disagree with. But if you want to know what being a cultural Christian sounds like then listen to his Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis, performed in Gloucester Cathedral. It's here on TH-cam.
Interesting video but I believe you are mistaking Darwinism as a prescriptive moral theory. Darwinism is merely a description of how life changes and adapts to the environment through evolution, but has no bearing on how humans ought to behave. Assuming it is the case that Christians are more likely to reproduce, this would not mean one ought to be Christian, and certainly that conclusion would not fall under Darwinism. Furthermore, nothing Dawkins is saying is “incoherent”, although I understand how some could mistake it for being inconsistent if they make a few assumptions. We can agree that Dawkins values the aesthetics and culture of Christianity, and he is free to do so without believing in the metaphysical and epistemological claims of the religion. Similar to how many atheists still participate in religious holidays like Easter or Christmas for their cultural and aesthetic value. Denying the claims of a religion does not mean the traditions of that religion should be also dismissed. Dawkins isn’t inconsistent or incoherent, but instead respectful and wise by wishing to preserve a culture and tradition even of a religion which he has vehemently opposed the claims of throughout his career.
Utilitarianism is a _moral_ theory. It tells us what we _should_ do. There is no _should_ in Darwinism. Darwinism is not a moral theory. Saying that Darwinism is utilitarian is incoherent. Darwinism is a process that does not prescribe actions or behaviors to people - human behavior is complex and influenced by factors beyond biological imperatives. Also, Darwinism is not necessarily “survival” and “quality of life”. It is simply “reproduce successfully”. It doesn’t imply a species needs to be altruistic or cooperative to reproduce.
I am very torn about Christianity right now, and have been for some time. As you know, I am contemplating a return. It's complicated. But no matter what happens with my spiritual life, I will always respect Dawkins for standing against transgender ideology when it has cost him status, even in atheist and liberal circles. Also, I believe he's honest, as you suggest. He doesn't disguise his beliefs in obfuscating spiritual language, like so many leaders in the UMC do, especially when they pray in public. Nonetheless, I am really enjoyng your channel. Please keep your videos coming.
Can someone express that they place a very high value on the life of a child, while still abhoring the SA that it resulted from? Regarding the evolution stuff, there's a lot of misunderstanding there, largest being that evolution is just a description of reality and does not (in and of itself) make any prescriptions about what ought to be.
I wish I had teased this out a little more explicitly; but I think one of the incongruent things about Dawkins' devotion to Truth is that there is this moral component - this "ought" - in his thinking. People "ought" to change their beliefs in order to align with what is true; it is the right thing to do, even if it makes no contribution to (and may even detract from) your "fitness" in a Darwinian sense. This kind of moral imperative does not (as far as I am able to see) flow from a strictly natrualistic worldview (which Dawkins claims to hold)... but it does flow from the Christian way of seeing things.
@@danielhixon8209 Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think it is simply the case that evolution can adequately explain why we value what we do, but does not bear on what we "should" value. And I think it has to be this way, regardless of whether you try to ground morality in biology or God or something else. If you've still got an ungrounded "ought" in your reasoning, you haven't found the bottom yet.
Super fallacious arguing in this video. He isn’t trying to “poison the branch that he’s sitting on” or whatever you said. He’s trying to admire the beauty of the branch and preserve that beauty while also helping others on the same branch try to work their way out of the delusion that the branch is deistic or divine in nature and has “supernatural” powers. You completely misinterpret him. Then you go on to say if he follows his atheist presuppositions to their logical conclusion, that he would convert to Christianity. Um, what? Science has proven over and over that meditation improves health and longevity of life and improves overall wellness and stress levels. Christian prayer is a *FORM* of meditation. In no way is there any evidence that being a Christian specifically over any other method of meditation across the world makes you live a longer and healthier happier life. Anyone can reap the benefits of mindfulness and meditation and many atheists do, and have extremely positive health benefits from doing so. It’s just that Christianity requires it if you on a routine basis in order to appease to the Christian god, so obviously the number is skewed. You guys literally HAVE to talk to your god daily or you believe you’ll go some place miserable when you die. Very fallacious arguing all across the board
My brother in Christ I appreciate you for being able to listen to Dawkins words, however, I must genuinely expressed that your interpretations of Dawkins stances can be dangerously misleading to many of your listeners. Dawkins is claiming he is culturally Christian. One example to explain to someone that might not know what that means is this. My father is from El Salvador, where the main religion is Roman Catholic. If my father were to be placed somewhere where the main religion is an Islamic one, he would experience culture shock, and would highly likely want to move back to El Salvador as fast as he can. All Dawkins is saying is that he is culturally Christian. That’s it. No need for interpretation. I don’t think anyone can argue that he is not culturally Christian. Putting words in his mouth about him desiring the fruit of Christianity is not good.
@@danielhixon8209 "Apparently I've expressed myself poorly." That's one way to put it. As a self-proclaimed intermediary to the one-and-only "All Powerful Creator of the Universe," I would think that you would be empowered to express yourself clearly. Then again, God couldn't make things clear either, or we wouldn't have a zillion religions all claiming to understand what He said, and that all the others are wrong. Richard Dawkins has a doctorate in Biology, representing thousands of hours of study in a fantastically complex field. You have a Doctorate in Fantasy. You can "earn" a doctorate in your field by reading only one book, over and over and over, trying to make sense of it, and failing- as you just admitted- because it just doesn't make any sense. In the end, Reason will prevail, if the human race survives its age-old fascination with mythological mumb-jumbo, and its predeliction for genuflecting to arguments from authority...
First of all, kudos for giving a pretty correct summary of the theory of evolution, I don't see that very often here on TH-cam. However, I think there are two problems in your argument: 1) Dawkins promotes evolution as a model to describe how nature works, not as a model of how a society should be or how individuals should behave. He made that very clear on several occasions. 2) Even if he strove to be fit in the darwinian sense, there is no point in mimicking what other, fitter people do, unless you can show that this behavior is the cause for their fitness rather than the effect. Forcing yourself to believe something that you deep down know to be untrue is surely not beneficial to your life and mental health. On the topic of being a cultural christian, I agree with Dawkins. Christianity had a huge impact on our western culture and we should not forget that. However, it is hard to tell apart what is christian in origin and what is secular as our culture is a mixture of so many influences and has evolved over time. Think about Christmas, how much of it is really of christian origin and how much is modern influence or even of pagan origin? In the end it is a tradition that you can enjoy regardless of its origin. When you talk about all the freedoms we enjoy in the western world, I don't think they are a gift of the christian religion. They all have been fought for for centuries and more often than not against the church. Despite my criticism I really like that you do videos on those matters and express your opinions. It is always nice see someone who looks at things from a different angle.
Your mistake here is taking what Dawkins is saying at face value. His claims of being a "cultural Christian" are newspeak for, "Brown people make me nervous, and I don't like the transes." Trying to rationalize a lie is a fool's errand.
Maybe he likes it because that’s the type of country he was brought up in… if he was brought up in a Muslim country he would prefer Muslim culture despite not believing in it.
He would be forced to like Muslim culture, and that's the whole point. Choice.
No Daniel. Why can't you take Richard Dawkins at what he says instead of trying to interpret it using your backwards and intellectually vapid opinion? All you are doing is twisting his words to fit your narrative. Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in your God - why would he convert to your religion? You have a poor argument, Daniel. I think if you talked to him about it, he'd tell you how wrong you are.
Good day @smequals, I believe you may have missed the point of my (slightly tongue in cheek) argument: my point is that if (as the studies show) conservative Christians are more likely to pass their genetic material onto the next generation and live longer and happier lives, and if - from a Naturalist point of view - what really matters is not whether your beliefs are true but whether they "work" to make one better adapted to the environment and contribute to "fitness" in a Darwinian sense, then Dawkins ought to convert regardless of the fact that he doesn't believe in God, as the logical conclusion of his own belief system. Of course that is a paradox, and my point is not that I think this argument will persuade him to convert, but that it points to what I see as an incongruence in his own position.
@@danielhixon8209 of course I missed your point Daniel, because your point is both absurd and lacks any understanding of Mr. Dawkins' point of view or how reality works.
The claim that "conservative Christians are more likely to pass their genetic material onto the next generation and live longer and happier lives" needs citations, but also needs context. Compared to what - everyone else? Certainly I can show specific groups of people are happy. Hong Kong, Macao and Japan are the three countries with the longest average lifespans. How conservative Christian are those countries? So, your premise lacks any intellectual honesty or rigor. I suggest that you do better research and get your points in order.
I don't think you understand naturalism. Basically, definition is: "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." You can agree with the definition or not, it's how it is normally used in this context. They way you describe it, beliefs don't matter, reproduction is all that matters. You've got that completely wrong. Beliefs DO matter. Talk to a naturalist sometime and they will tell you. Personally, I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Your god is one of the false things from all I can tell. I believe Dawkins in his numerous books has basically said the same thing over and over, so I don't know where you get the idea that he doesn't care about belief.
Evolution is real, true, as proven a fact as gravity, whether you believe it or not. I don't know where you stand on it. I do think you understand evolution in the small amount you described it. Dawkins has been very clear on his position on evolution as well. Evolution has nothing to do with a god or gods. It also doesn't have anything to do with quality of the life we lead. It only has to do with reproduction and passing along genetic material from one population to another.
When you take Dawkins out of context, which you clearly did here, you miss all of the context and nuance of what he is saying. He, like many people and myself included, appreciate the art, the culture, the beauty, the music, and the poetry of the human experience. Some of that has Christianity at its base. It's part of our history and our culture. There is a shit-ton of ugliness that has come from Christianity as well. He was basically saying that he has an appreciation for some of the things that has come from Christianity and would not want that to be wiped out or be replaced by another religion. And I agree. Not that I feel any god is real, or that the Christian God is real at all. But I can admire beautiful stained glass windows and cathedrals and music without believing in the god or joining or converting to the religion. So can Dawkins. And I'm not sure why you missed that.
Ask me if I want to wipe out Christianity and I'd say no. I believe you should have the right to worship as you wish as long as it doesn't impede on my rights as well. You're fortunate you live somewhere that honors your right because many places do not. I don't want to see a religion of any kind take over countries by force, wipe out the religion that was there, and institute their own. History is replete with that kind of thing and it is disgusting and barbaric. It's how Christianity spread - not by joy but by bloodshed and death. It's how Islam spread too. I want that to never happen again.
I think the logical conclusion for Dawkins is likely the same as it is for me. To appreciate life as we know it. To want to believe in true things and not false things. To live live to its fullest without people telling us what to think or how to think. And to pass along our genes and our knowledge to the next generation if possible so they can learn, grow and thrive. As far as I'm concerned, with that as the goal, there is no god required. You might think otherwise, but the burden of proof is on you. Until I have compelling and sufficient evidence for god's existence, I don't believe in a god. I think Dawkins is likely at the same place, but I don't speak for him. But I think that's the message in what he is saying.
Why do you believe and what is your compelling and sufficient evidence?
@@smequals "Evolution is real, true, as proven a fact as gravity, whether you believe it or not." Correct! Even christians believe in evolution. Many of them believe that Noah story is true but argue that Noah took only "kinds" of animals, because otherwise it would be imposible to fit all two pairs of animals that we see in that boat. They argue that in 6,000 years all the "kinds" that Noah took evolved into the diversity that we have now. A sort of evolution on steroids. Of course, this is just an effort to make the story work.
@@danielhixon8209you are conflating the theory of evolution with social darwinism. The theory of evolution doesnt address what is right or wrong. It addresses changes in populations. This is evolution 101
@@danielhixon8209 There is absolutely no incongruity, or incoherence in Dawkins' view. I wouldn't expect an American to understand, as you have very little history and not much culture, but pretty much everyone in the UK and right across Europe is a cultural Christian. For the very simple reason that we are surrounded on all sides by more than a thousand years of Christian culture. It's completely unavoidable.
Ralph Vaughan Williams was an agnostic socialist; probably everything you would disagree with. But if you want to know what being a cultural Christian sounds like then listen to his Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis, performed in Gloucester Cathedral. It's here on TH-cam.
Interesting video but I believe you are mistaking Darwinism as a prescriptive moral theory. Darwinism is merely a description of how life changes and adapts to the environment through evolution, but has no bearing on how humans ought to behave.
Assuming it is the case that Christians are more likely to reproduce, this would not mean one ought to be Christian, and certainly that conclusion would not fall under Darwinism.
Furthermore, nothing Dawkins is saying is “incoherent”, although I understand how some could mistake it for being inconsistent if they make a few assumptions. We can agree that Dawkins values the aesthetics and culture of Christianity, and he is free to do so without believing in the metaphysical and epistemological claims of the religion. Similar to how many atheists still participate in religious holidays like Easter or Christmas for their cultural and aesthetic value.
Denying the claims of a religion does not mean the traditions of that religion should be also dismissed. Dawkins isn’t inconsistent or incoherent, but instead respectful and wise by wishing to preserve a culture and tradition even of a religion which he has vehemently opposed the claims of throughout his career.
Utilitarianism is a _moral_ theory. It tells us what we _should_ do. There is no _should_ in Darwinism. Darwinism is not a moral theory. Saying that Darwinism is utilitarian is incoherent. Darwinism is a process that does not prescribe actions or behaviors to people - human behavior is complex and influenced by factors beyond biological imperatives. Also, Darwinism is not necessarily “survival” and “quality of life”. It is simply “reproduce successfully”. It doesn’t imply a species needs to be altruistic or cooperative to reproduce.
I am very torn about Christianity right now, and have been for some time. As you know, I am contemplating a return. It's complicated. But no matter what happens with my spiritual life, I will always respect Dawkins for standing against transgender ideology when it has cost him status, even in atheist and liberal circles. Also, I believe he's honest, as you suggest. He doesn't disguise his beliefs in obfuscating spiritual language, like so many leaders in the UMC do, especially when they pray in public. Nonetheless, I am really enjoyng your channel. Please keep your videos coming.
Always amazes me the pretzels you people turn yourselves into in order to justify your belief in the ultimate sky god.
You are not supposed to pray in public anyway. You should know that. Do you have a video where you prove God exists?
Can someone express that they place a very high value on the life of a child, while still abhoring the SA that it resulted from?
Regarding the evolution stuff, there's a lot of misunderstanding there, largest being that evolution is just a description of reality and does not (in and of itself) make any prescriptions about what ought to be.
I wish I had teased this out a little more explicitly; but I think one of the incongruent things about Dawkins' devotion to Truth is that there is this moral component - this "ought" - in his thinking. People "ought" to change their beliefs in order to align with what is true; it is the right thing to do, even if it makes no contribution to (and may even detract from) your "fitness" in a Darwinian sense. This kind of moral imperative does not (as far as I am able to see) flow from a strictly natrualistic worldview (which Dawkins claims to hold)... but it does flow from the Christian way of seeing things.
@@danielhixon8209 Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think it is simply the case that evolution can adequately explain why we value what we do, but does not bear on what we "should" value.
And I think it has to be this way, regardless of whether you try to ground morality in biology or God or something else. If you've still got an ungrounded "ought" in your reasoning, you haven't found the bottom yet.
This was a horrible attempt at making a coherent point
Super fallacious arguing in this video. He isn’t trying to “poison the branch that he’s sitting on” or whatever you said. He’s trying to admire the beauty of the branch and preserve that beauty while also helping others on the same branch try to work their way out of the delusion that the branch is deistic or divine in nature and has “supernatural” powers. You completely misinterpret him. Then you go on to say if he follows his atheist presuppositions to their logical conclusion, that he would convert to Christianity. Um, what? Science has proven over and over that meditation improves health and longevity of life and improves overall wellness and stress levels. Christian prayer is a *FORM* of meditation. In no way is there any evidence that being a Christian specifically over any other method of meditation across the world makes you live a longer and healthier happier life. Anyone can reap the benefits of mindfulness and meditation and many atheists do, and have extremely positive health benefits from doing so. It’s just that Christianity requires it if you on a routine basis in order to appease to the Christian god, so obviously the number is skewed. You guys literally HAVE to talk to your god daily or you believe you’ll go some place miserable when you die. Very fallacious arguing all across the board
Richard Dawkins "incoherent?" This from a man who believes in zombies, talking snakes, and self-combusting bushes. Right...
Don't forget the talking donkeys as well!
almost as bad as Dawkins telling us our grandfather 2 billion years ago was a fish.
@@gsp3428 yeah except he never said that. Your ignorance about evolution is unbounded.
@@rickedwards7276 He didnt, there is a whole video on youtube, go watch it. 185 million generations ago your grandfather was a fish.
@@gsp3428 sigh…
Yet another preacher of FAIRY TALES attempting to slander its intellectual superiors.
Superstition is all you got.
GROW UP
READ A DIFFERENT BOOK.....
My brother in Christ I appreciate you for being able to listen to Dawkins words, however, I must genuinely expressed that your interpretations of Dawkins stances can be dangerously misleading to many of your listeners. Dawkins is claiming he is culturally Christian. One example to explain to someone that might not know what that means is this. My father is from El Salvador, where the main religion is Roman Catholic. If my father were to be placed somewhere where the main religion is an Islamic one, he would experience culture shock, and would highly likely want to move back to El Salvador as fast as he can. All Dawkins is saying is that he is culturally Christian. That’s it. No need for interpretation. I don’t think anyone can argue that he is not culturally Christian. Putting words in his mouth about him desiring the fruit of Christianity is not good.
Apparently I've expressed myself poorly; it was never my intention to dispute what Dawkins says about himself.
@@danielhixon8209 "Apparently I've expressed myself poorly." That's one way to put it. As a self-proclaimed intermediary to the one-and-only "All Powerful Creator of the Universe," I would think that you would be empowered to express yourself clearly. Then again, God couldn't make things clear either, or we wouldn't have a zillion religions all claiming to understand what He said, and that all the others are wrong. Richard Dawkins has a doctorate in Biology, representing thousands of hours of study in a fantastically complex field. You have a Doctorate in Fantasy. You can "earn" a doctorate in your field by reading only one book, over and over and over, trying to make sense of it, and failing- as you just admitted- because it just doesn't make any sense. In the end, Reason will prevail, if the human race survives its age-old fascination with mythological mumb-jumbo, and its predeliction for genuflecting to arguments from authority...
First of all, kudos for giving a pretty correct summary of the theory of evolution, I don't see that very often here on TH-cam.
However, I think there are two problems in your argument:
1) Dawkins promotes evolution as a model to describe how nature works, not as a model of how a society should be or how individuals should behave. He made that very clear on several occasions.
2) Even if he strove to be fit in the darwinian sense, there is no point in mimicking what other, fitter people do, unless you can show that this behavior is the cause for their fitness rather than the effect. Forcing yourself to believe something that you deep down know to be untrue is surely not beneficial to your life and mental health.
On the topic of being a cultural christian, I agree with Dawkins. Christianity had a huge impact on our western culture and we should not forget that. However, it is hard to tell apart what is christian in origin and what is secular as our culture is a mixture of so many influences and has evolved over time. Think about Christmas, how much of it is really of christian origin and how much is modern influence or even of pagan origin? In the end it is a tradition that you can enjoy regardless of its origin. When you talk about all the freedoms we enjoy in the western world, I don't think they are a gift of the christian religion. They all have been fought for for centuries and more often than not against the church.
Despite my criticism I really like that you do videos on those matters and express your opinions. It is always nice see someone who looks at things from a different angle.
Your mistake here is taking what Dawkins is saying at face value. His claims of being a "cultural Christian" are newspeak for, "Brown people make me nervous, and I don't like the transes." Trying to rationalize a lie is a fool's errand.
Fantastic video, I wasn't sure there for a little bit, but you drew it all together in the end.
This is not your forte. It's amazing to me how smug you seem while being completely wrong. Read through these comments and try to take them to heart.
Big fan of your channel pastor Hixon.
Excellent topic