Roots Of Reason: Growing Up with Richard Dawkins
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- I will be on tour of North America, UK & EU talking about my latest book, religion, life on earth and beyond. I will be joined on stage by a range of friends and foes on stage. The events will include a Q&A and a limited meet-and-greet. You can get your tickets here: richarddawkins...
#richarddawkins #richarddawkinstour
This episode features a conversation with my friend, writer, broadcaster and former MP Gyles Brandreth, from his podcast Rosebud. We reminisce over my memories of growing up in Kenya and the UK, going over our journeys with private education, bad teachers, young love, and the first time learning about starfish filled me with wonder and awe over science and the natural world.
_______________________
Join Substack:
richarddawkins...
Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel:
/ @poetryofreality
Follow:
Instagram: / the.poetry.of.reality
Twitter: / richarddawkins
Facebook: / richarddawkinsbooks
Reddit: / thepoetryofreality
![State of Play | September 24, 2024 [ENGLISH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fVs0suPHAX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Dawkins you are the prophète of science and reason
I thank Richard Dawkins for helping me to make the final step towards removing the shackles of religious and spiritual magical thinking. I was never a holy roller and had always questioned the nonsense being spewed by religious people but now know fully that there is nothing after we’re gone. No hell. No heaven. Good and bad happens to all regardless of your beliefs. There is no celestial intervention. My mind is completely free of all thoughts of any mythology of religion. You don’t need religion to be a moral decent person., which I strive to be everyday.
That's the beauty of Atheism.
What a shame he conned you by using magical metaphysics ( same as the psychic mediums do all along - see what other arch new atheist Grayling says :
For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38]
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group.
You people think you can remote view the universe in other words. And sometimes an absolute plank who cannot tell the difference between the scientific method & metaphysics gets to where dawkins is just because their secret club says so.
Well - it can be powered by historical slavery some think too :
www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/19/richard-dawkins-disbelief-slave-trade-ancestor
Note - how even faced with facts Dawkins prefers a surreal outlook rather than the TRUTH!!
@@cameroncameron2826I read your comments twice but am unable to discern what point, if any, you are trying to make.
Here Here!!
@@Andre_XX I'm sorry you cannot understand something easy to understand. New Atheism & richard dawkins statement is that they seek truth by the scientific method. That is a lie as they use METAPHYSICS - which is just mental / guessing psychic intuition.
And i posted the evidence - hers an extract of that :
Quote - (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group..
How can you fail to understand that ? Can you see this ?
Quote - (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist''
You are sighted and have a good mind yes ?
He does offend me additionally was my mother was a white british pow/slave in WW2 and his personal estate was obtained by the proceeds of slavery.
He cannot make histrionic statements in that position & expect to prevent others making them about that skeleton in the cupboard.
It was his first wave followers that first disrupted and ruined my own internet debate experiences. They'd turn up and were always militant maniacs repeating every words dawkins said . His MESS in the shape of idiotic sycophantic followers interfered with ME - not the other way around.
But NONE of that is the prime reason. If someone is to claim they seek TRUTH above all as RD does - then the process needs to appear supportive to this - it doesn't.
Instead Richard Dawkins is a Post Truth Marxist Hegelist Totalitarian compatible metaphysical con man detached from empirical / scientific method reality who is playing around with cheap lazy meaningless metaphysics in full view - just because his followers are so DIM.
I really enjoyed listening to this conversation. Very honest and kind of relatable in its humanity. Thank you to all involved.
Excellent conversation. Always a delight to see the “normal” side of Dawkins.
What an interesting set of experiences and conclusions subsequent to them,,, then and there after from a future distant perspective….its all quite amazing.
One will never expand there ability to go further than reason if one don't open their thoughts to the unthinkable ?
❤❤
I love their voice
Their*
@@fionagregory9147 thanks
50:59 - If Richard Dawkins has the good fortune to inherit his parent’s genes for longevity, he’ll be with us for many years to come.
(His father passed away in his mid 90’s and his mother to almost 103 !)
Fun!
I will not critisize Mr. Dawkin's way of thinking. His agnosticism is obviously an intellectual possibility. But one should keep in mind that men of no lesser capacity, to put it mildly, i.e. great sages of the past and of the present, saw things quite differently. One needs to find out where one stands on such crucial existential questions. Mr. Dawkins compels to think.
Isnt life lovely?
Too bad that you don't communicate with your audience. Pleas tell me, Jesus was a known Mann yes ? This is documented very well. How many children did he have ?`
None?
Very good conversation. I'm surprised that Richard couldn't recall his young girlfriends. I can recall all of my boyfriends. Richard must have lost his virginity after the age of 20, by what he said.
Maybe he had some negative experiences as well that he didn't want to mention in this.
@@r4h4al possibly.
Mathematics made me - along with my famous colleague Leibniz - a theist, and in a few lines I will show you that atheists actually believe in God. 😆 At least they rely on God. Not the “God” they imagine (and which they reject), but the one pointed to by the great mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
Because when they argue against God (more precisely, against what they imagine as "God"), they rely on the spaceless and timeless laws of logic, which they implicitely believe, of course, are unconditionally valid.
What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the fact that mathematical theorems, such as the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone proves that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial way.
In fact, if one admits that spaceless and timeless, i.e. immaterial and eternal truths exist, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this 'something' is God. The Logos God [cf. John 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his "Monadology": "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and ideas, and of on whom they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction."
Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies on logic. In this way both testify to the
Logos. The first consistently, the second obviously not.
In this context, it is noteworthy that some excellent theoretical physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, think that even matter ultimately arises from (quantum) logic [ Wheeler's “It from bit” ]. The brilliant Martin I. Kober, who further developed Carl F. von Weizsäcker's quantum theory of primordial alternatives before he sadly passed away in 2021 at the young age of 38, left us this message in his last published article: “The crucial thing about all these considerations is that ... [ in Weizsäcker's theory ] no space-time, no background structure at all and therefore no field-theoretical concepts whatsoever is presupposed. As with Hegel, the entire world is spanned by pure logic, or more precisely by pure quantum logic. Apart from time, all that really exists is logic which floats in the void. This corresponds exactly to the claim of Christian theology that God created the world from the Logos."
[ cf. arxiv.org/pdf/1809.02469.pdf, p. 101 f. - my translation from German ]
I need to throw up after yet another dawkins video with him kneeling to elite religious people under the subterfuge that this is somehow the civilised thing to do. So for the peasants the religious debate must be vile. In dawkins case in these secret societies HE can admire and have wonderful relationships with them.
Does RD need to swear faith to a supreme being by any chance otherwise elite special clubs would black ball him ? Is that why HIS personal experience with the rich powerful jet set believers is so rewarding for him ?
What utter gibberish
😂😂😂
At no point does he neal, he says he's polite and lets people he accepts their ridiculous but doesn't judge, I doesn't agree with them but why bring up in every day friendships and he rejects faith and swears to no supreme anything.
Why lie?
@@jameswright... Dawkins is a metaphysical con man in plain sight. New atheism is a thought crime modelling lab.
Heres is how philosopher to new atheism describes how to define an Atheist :
QUOTE - (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group.
On this last point, Grayling's view is that for historical reasons religions have an inflated place in the public domain out of all proportion to the numbers of their adherents or their intrinsic merits, so that their voice and influence is amplified disproportionately: with the result that they can distort such matters as public policy (e.g. on abortion) and science research and education (e.g. stem cells, teaching of evolution). He argues that winning the metaphysical and ethical debates is already abating the problems associated with (c) in more advanced Western societies, even the US. He sees his own major contribution as being the promotion of understanding of humanist ethics deriving from the philosophical tradition.[3 UNQUOTE
QUOTE - (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist''
THERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH.
They told everyone they use the scientific method - but its NOT its METAPHYSICS
Metaphysics is the approach the theists use.
So does PUTIN / so did Mao / Marx / Hegel.
Those people used it because it supplies the totalitarian with all degrees of freedom to lie.
Dawkins and Grayling are out of their minds publishing THAT & so are you dopey sycophants for putting up with such nonsense.
His 400 acres pile was paid for out of the slave trade by a great great great relative
www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/19/richard-dawkins-disbelief-slave-trade-ancestor
How can you be brilliant if you got it all wrong
What have you got all right that Dawkins has got "all wrong"?
@@Andre_XX the whole universe was made through Jesus Christ and for Jesus Christ nothing in creation was made without him. Hidden wisdom
Ask yourself that.
@@paulburger2963Really really extremely well hidden wisdom. So well hidden that neither I nor the greatest minds in cosmology have ever been able to see it.
@@Andre_XX read the big book for yourself and find everlasting life
Are you fair dinkum You think Richard 100%right HE SAID HISTORIANS BELEIVE JESUS WAS NOT REAL HE WAS WRONG 5 SECOND THERE GOES HIS 100% IF I WAS YOU I WOULD CHECK OUT WHAT HE HAS SAID. After all you can't trust ATHEISTS OK
You are incorrect.
@@fionagregory9147 So prove l am wrong
Videos with Dawkins are for intellectual people. Religious people can please go elsewhere and stew in their own state of embarrassing intellectual vacuity.
@@Andre_XX Yer right intellectual talk to themself WHY. To convince themself WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMATE CHANGE NOT TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND LETS CONFUSE IT FOSSEL FUEL MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE
.
@@Andre_XX who said your intellectual more of a cult
Prof Dawkins is delusional- Dawkins has written books based on lies lies lies- just to make money ££- What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !! How do you disprove God ??
I always read comment like this one in Dawkin's voice. It's just fantastical 🤌
How do you disprove the teapot orbiting Jupiter that talks to me and is my own personal savior. How do you disprove The Easter Bunny? I once heard a radio broadcast that the Easter Bunny was killed in a car accident so it must have happened. How can you prove you aren’t a serial killer? I believe you are so you must be because in your world belief is all that matters not evidence. The real question is how do you disprove evolution by natural selection?
@@Permadose Good questions
Richard Dawkins et al have long published that you 'prove' such things via Metaphysics :
Quote - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38]
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group. - Unquote.
Always talking about scientific methods but only using special psychic l powers of METAPHYSICS THEN !
No wonder Dawkins so loves to relate to goblins & spaghetti monsters - he really believes in them.
Real science is expensive and time consuming.
Metaphysics worthless / cheap / instant /Theist/psychic - but THAT is still how Dawkins et al carry on nevertheless.
'' (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist ''
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Grayling#References
See ? - these people are idiots not genius.
YOU are the one claiming there IS a god. The onus of proof lies with YOU. Atheists have nothing at all to prove here. I am left breathlessly wondering what exactly constitutes "innocent religious people"? I can't see how people who lie to small children that some dude walked on water and died and came back to life, who terrify children with hellfire and damnation, who indoctrinate people on an industrial scale with mythology dating from a time when people didn't even know where the sun went at night, can be seen as "innocent". I see them as shameful, disgusting and deeply evil and attacking them is to me a most honorable occupation, something I am not in the least bit reticent about doing myself.
You are claiming god exists. The onus of proof is on you. Atheists don't need to disprove anything.
I enjoy your pod casts very much. At 82 I still love to learn. Thank you from Canada.
Hello from the north of England! I'm in West Yorkshire and - surprise, surprise - the weather's horrible. 🙂 Canada's a hu-u-u-ge place; where abouts are you based, if I may ask?
🇨🇦👀
I've travelled extensively throughout Canada and the US. I'm now retired in Ontario. We've had a mild winter this year not as much snow and temps around -10 to -25 over the winter. I watch a lot of British programming on YT.
What I admire most about Dawkins is his sheer cold hearted attitude toward MAN MADE religion. This man has not one second for spirituality. He is 100% correct 100% of the time because he ONLY concerns himself with fact. A true scientist by definition.
A true scientist considers all (ALL) aspects of what he studies, and when it comes to religion, belief, and all that implies that which "ties together" belief systems, Dawkins is a religious fanatic ( your 100%). When this life finishes, the science will be finished, gone, reason done with, and all that remains may be your, his, and my soul.
@@majnuni Huh? Can someone translate this for me? I'm 100% what?
When he dies science will not go with him. The facts of science will still remain. The soul is another MAN MADE idea. There is no such thing. He will die, his thoughts on science will end and he will slowly turn into a pile of goo totally unaware of the universe. FACT! Lmao......
NO - Dawkins considers METAPHYSICS to be 'scientific method' just as a.c grayling relates here :
QUOTE - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38]
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group - Unquote.
Its clear as day the whole new atheism plot is a con.
METAPHYSICS !!
Haha - well Dawkins is certain expert at doing his followers up like a kipper yes. Sorry to disappoint you but like all the lying politicians, Dawkins uses doublespeak and in fact cheats. Religion for instance comes about as people use their imaginations and idea pop into their heads - its called METAPHYSICS.
Now see what new atheism gets up to really :
QUOTE - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38]
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group - UNQUOTE.
There are scientist and scientists some are not as good as some you work it out
Prof Richard Dawkins…….truly a national treasure !
Well, Richard Dawkins is just admirable... The god delusion is fantastic... Thank You from Venezuela...
Excellent talk.
Lovely listen.
They made a movie about Stephen Hawking while he was still alive - isn’t it about time they made one about the incredible life of Richard Dawkins ?
I wonder who he would choose to direct it and who he would like to play the leading role.
Christopher Nolan to direct, & Tom Cruise to play the lead?
The one who played 'Lord Melbury' in fawlty towers would be perfect to play metaphysics con man Dawkins.
Brandreth did a good job of asking obscure questions that rebounded on himself to recount his own pithy anecdotes.
Why do I keep seeing Monty Python skits listening to this.. What O!
Love Dr Dawkins as a biologist/ author, curious of Richard as a man. Thanks for this episode🎉
Wow! You were born in our country.
Interesting coincidence that National Science Appreciation Day - March 26th - also happens to be Richard Dawkins’ birthday..
What a treat
please don’t die ♥️
What an absolutely delightful conversation! It was such a pleasure to sit in on this conversation - thanks to you both.
thanks for my upbringing out of mainstream religion dictation.
The big problem for Dawkins, something that he by now must be fully aware of and is having trouble to cope with, is the fact that the simplistic dogma that has made him famous is now being compehensively debunked by sound scientific facts.
The post-Darwinist dictum is that spontaneous mutations in DNA create some individuals with superior adaptability who then dominate through selective pressure. This mechanism works beautifully within a given species, but cannot explain speciation. Speciation is a mystery and Dawkins must know this, and yet he keeps pushing his theory because his entire fame is based on it.
Why do you, mr Dawkins, need our "contributions"?
If you're poor go to church, they give away free lunch every sundays😂
What a nice interview...
Am I the only one finding Dawkins voice almost hypnotizing?
That voice is what full meal feals like.
feels*
Dawkins..ohhhh he will find the answer
Any advice on how to get over feelings of guilt on becoming Atheist? New atheist here.
What made you an atheist?
@buraqstudio0786 I've practiced Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. I've mentally outgrown God and see all that religion as crap. I no longer believe in God. Man created God in his image (instead of the other way around).
@@Miriam-ui5pw
Just be happy!
Your free of immoral man made shackles.
Free to learn the beautiful facts of reality without the mental block of religious bias and indoctoration.
Why do you feel shame over recently becoming an Atheist? Are people that you love insulting you?
@@jameswright...Thank you.Yes, I'm finally free.
I have a couple of questions for Richard Dawkins... Do you think Jesus existed? And what about the other guys from the bible, Moses, Paul, etc, did they exist? Uff, I'm so proud to be an atheist... Thanks
I enjoyed this podcast so much, especially have read almost all of Dawkins' books, including his fascinating autobiographies. Thank you.
I Patrick A. Andrews am the man who presented a evolution theory that was based on the science of DNA, and current events in 1995 by two way radio that was right .
If the Hitch was on here with Giles. We could truly say malifluous.
A truly admirable man, such a shame they happen to be so few now.
3:46- An adorable coincidence that the mother of the author of The Selfish Gene, was also called Jean, albeit a different spelling but same pronunciation.
I saw Dawkins at a presentation where he was claiming Bill Nye was saving the world. For one thing, no one man saves the world and certainly not the charlatan Bill Nye. What's up with that?
Its what would be expected since both are charlatans.
@@cameroncameron2826What exactly are they supposed to conning the world about? If you want to criticise someone, at least offer an explanation and evidence to support what you are alleging, otherwise you can and will be safely ignored.
@cameroncameron2826 what are you doing here? What are you trying to achieve.
@@teapot_ I could be looking for evidence concerning whether or not people like you understand its ok for anyone to post here or not just like you do.
NYE is a jackass and Dawkins did suck up to him a bit too much , i saw that too and criticized him for it, but the BIG BIG BIG Charlatan is your religious CULT,, certainly no DEAD MAN JEBUS Saves the world LOL
Gyles Brandreth?
No thank you, not even for Dawkins. 🤮
11:41- just because “you took it (molestation) in your stride” doesn’t mean you SHOULD take it in your stride !
You didn't get their point. What they say is that you should discriminate between more and less serious cases, like you do in all other offences/crimes (stealing a roll/ robbing a bank).
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
According to scripture yes but those scriptures are man made immoral nonsense.
The bible is bullshit. Wake up.
Why do the unwelcome bible thumpers always show up and spew forth their sad mental delusions for everyone to pity at when great videos like this one appear?
@@Andre_XX Just to troll I guess.
@@r4h4alThat would be it!
"Infinite regress" is Dawkins' ultimate, silver-bullet God killer; 'in that only regress
exists...God itself must have a creator'. UNFORTUNATELY (MORONICALLY/IMBECILLICALLY)
infinite regress reflects the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (NEWS to "Richard"). BUUTTT...
in the first chapter of The God Delusion he specifies he refers to ONLY "supernatural gods".
1st Law IS NATURAL LAW---BY DEFINITION supernatural supersedes natural law...
THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!!!!
Just no 😂
Supernatural means above or beyond nature and magical.
Science is about the natural world and disproves supernatural claims.
You can't be superseded by something that's nonsense 😂😂
Thermodynamics is part of the science's 😂😂😂
I always read comments like this in Dawkin's voice. I think he would find difficulty with this word salad, but give it a go all the same.