I'm finally facing my fears. Reading 'The God Delusion' for the first time w/ Jimmy Akin.

In this episode, I'm joined by Jimmy Akin where we'll be reading the third chapter in "The God Delusion" where Richard Dawkins discusses (and easily debunks) the arguments for God's existence.
💸 Want to support CC? capturingchris...
✨ Free books! tinyurl.com/CC...
📱 Business inquiry? capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[@AlFurqanAlHaqq-jt3qc]

He was part of my deconstruction. Him and Bryan Fleming. I eventually became a Christian again. Realizing how idiotic mythicism was and how wholeheartedly it was accepted by skeptics sort of helped jar me out of my atheism.

[@CynHicks]

To be fair serious skeptics have never embraced mythicism. Loud skeptics have but...If I remember correctly even the History Channel back in the 90s (I was an agnostic then though later I became an athiest/materialist) did a special on mythicism where essentially destroyed the narrative. It ended with an agnostic narrative but did a great job of pointing out how absurd it is to claim that The New Testament was all myth.* *Using the idiomatic definition, of course. Using the "technical" definition you can in fact say that Jesus's story is a myth. Maybe this has caused some confusion too.

[@AlFurqanAlHaqq-jt3qc]

@@CynHicks Depends how you define "serious skeptics." Christ mythicism was ubiquitous back in 2015 when I was an atheist. Back then I think Dawkins was saying "there may have been a historical figure of Jesus but he was nothing like the one of the Bible if he did exist." I think his opinion was something like that. Christ mythicism was everywhere though. Did you ever see Zeitgeist? When I say Christ mythicism I'm not just referring to the belief that the new testament stories are myth. Specifically its that the ideas around Jesus were based on other dying and rising deities. As an atheist I was entirely untrusting of any Christian sources. I actually only abandoned Christ mythicism because of Bart Ehrman.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

Atheist for over 50 years; finally read the God Delusion a few years back, and it reminded me of my style of argument when I was a newly-hatched 12-years-old skeptic.

[@kimfleury]

Thank you, Jimmy, for promoting the Patreon membership for this channel. I benefit from videos like this, so I'm grateful to all who support the content creator. I prayed 3 Hail Marys for your combined intensions in this collaboration. In honor of God the Father 🌹 and God the Son 🌹 and God the Holy Spirit 🌹🙏🏻✝️

[@Stabu]

So I'm an atheist and have been one for almost the past 30 years (yes, I'm old), and I can say that the God Delusion is a stupid book. I remember reading it in 2008 just after it came out and already thinking about how poorly it was argued. I expected much more from Dawkins as some of his books are good and quite persuasive. Most of the arguments presented in the God Delusion are if not outright childish, just straw mans that he first sets up and then "heroically" defeats. It's not the worst money I've ever spent, but I wouldn't buy that book again.

[@HellenicPapist]

Thank you for your honest feedback : ) It’s definitely not helpful for anyone when any side strawman’s an argument for an easy “victory”. Dawkins has always been off-putting in the manner he discusses. I enjoy listening to Alex O’Conner’s take from the Atheist side, he seems genuine and charitable.

[@angelbrother1238]

30 is a kid dude 😂 I’m 56 about to turn 57 and I became an atheist late in life at age 40 and stayed one for 4 years . Have you ever tried looking into the NDE research ?

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Atheist Michael Ruse said _The God Delusion_ “made me embarrassed to be an atheist.”

[@Stabu]

@@angelbrother1238 I have looked at NDE stories, but not really NDE research as such (research being actually peer-review papers - I didn't even know they existed). I have noticed that about 2/3rds report a heavenly-like condition in their NDE, whereas the remaining third are in a place similar to purgatory or hell. I can't come up with a "natural" explanation for NDEs, I just say that "I don't know", but I do feel them to be among the better arguments for God's existence. What makes me pause is that many of the stories from NDE's are such that they counter all sorts of religious or even moral teachings, so the topic gets very strange and problematic real quick.

[@raphaelfigueredo4858]

​​@@angelbrother1238He didn't say he's 30. He said he's been at atheist for ~30 years.

[@LetsgoB]

Thanks!

[@esprit-critique]

It is funny…one might think that Jimmy Atkins with his cowboy hat is a simpleton. Big big mistake! This guy is one of the finest mind and debater alive. I first discovered him in a debate with Bart Ehrman. He was superbly prepared and he managed to destabilize Ehrman with a smile! Here again he shows his intellectual strength by pointing the importance to avoid the straw man fallacy in debates.

[@CynHicks]

I would go so far to say that only simpletons entertain that stereotype. 🤠 Edit - "Cowboys" like the classic truck driver spend a lot of time just thinking. Specifically with drivers there's a lot of time for listening to audio books, talk radio/other people's point of view ect... That's why talk radio host generally want to push drivers to the front of the que. They typically make the most provoking callers.

[@basedkaren51]

I saw an interview with Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson, where he said the book, ironically enough converted a lot of atheist to Christianity or religion in general… 🤔

[@Michael-bk5nz]

There is an entire book filled with accounts of atheists who say reading Richard Dawkins convinced them to believe in God

[@SonsOfTitans]

It’s the ultimate irony regarding attacks against Christianity. That is, when you try to kill the religion that was founded on the resurrection of Christ - and even if you succeed - it has a tendency to, well, not stay dead lol

[@nicolamustard7232]

God is a poet....❤

[@ChildofGod98765]

Holy Spirit, direct me in my career, and finances. As a single mother with two children with special needs is an overwhelming journey, especially when faced with financial difficulties. Lord I struggle to provide the basic necessities for my sons, like groceries and rent. I pray for your divine intervention in my life, that you would provide for my children’s needs and guide me towards financial stability. I will keep faith in you Heavenly Father.❤️💕

[@1mouthpieceforchrist823]

I hope you're praying this to Him in private and not just typing this out for others to read. Remember what Jesus says... pray to your Father in secret and then He will reward you... otherwise, the only reward you'll receive is maybe some attention from man.

[@enderwiggen3638]

God isn’t a slot machine. You should only be asking God to give you the strength to bear the cross you have and not look for attention with your posts …

[@LoyaltotheNightsky]

Just here to add another "As an atheist, I find Dawkins arguments terrible and plenty of us don't endorse such things" comment.

[@jermsil3]

I once explained to that God isn't a long bearded man in the sky, rather a uncreated creator outside of space and time. The atheist argued back, "that's not the Christian view, believe that if you want but don't call yourself Christian." Oof.

[@nicolamustard7232]

Peoples' arrogance seems bottomless

[@matswessling6600]

have you ever thought of the words in Lords Prayer? "Father who are i in heaven"...😂

[@inolvidablee]

This format makes the stream very engaging. Congratulations! BTW some entry level scholasticism (for dummies) would be really great

[@Joker22593]

My view of the Ontological Argument is: "God is defined as existing. If you are considering something that isn't existing, what you're considering isn't God."

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

It's more like, given the facts of reality regarding the greatest possible thing, then God must be real. (clearly from a platonist) I enjoy it though. Plato's a real one

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

40:54 Slight correction: The upper limit for temperature currently is known as Planck's temperature and is approximately 1.41679 × 10^32 kelvins. Besides that, y'all did a wonderful job at dismantling his book, or at least those chapters mentioned. Thanks.

[@JimmyAkin]

Good point! That slipped my mind! 😊

[@JoBo301]

Your faith will be strengthened after reading that book.

[@kevinkelly2162]

You either believe something or you don't. Talk of strengthening a belief sounds like you don't believe but you want to.

[@JoBo301]

@@kevinkelly2162 Reading the God Delusion will give the Christian even more reasons to believe, because if that is the best the atheists can do then they offer very little opposition.

[@inquisitor1984]

@@kevinkelly2162there are degrees of certainty even in a particular belief about a particular thing, objectively. Faith is a collection of beliefs with both objective and subjective dimensions. Strength in this regard refers to overall confidence about truth that can be affected by one particular belief or many.

[@kevinkelly2162]

@@inquisitor1984 Nah, something is true or you are kidding yourself.

[@inquisitor1984]

@@kevinkelly2162 How do you know it's true? There is an entire branch of philosophy, epistemology, devoted to this. Dismissive handwaving might make you feel comfortable, but it's dumb.

[@johncopper5128]

Thank you.

[@remanentfoot4109]

This is great, keep it up!

[@Charlllot]

Cameron, your British accent while reading the book was so hilarious 😂😂 Thank you

[@antpassalacqua]

i feel you on the accents cam, i always have a brooklyn accent but when you get me around all the older men in my family its BAD

[@inquisitor1984]

Highly recommend the audiobook version. It’s hilarious. 😂 Prof. Dawkins reads it himself, and he does have a pleasant reading voice.

[@achristian11]

Excellent video brother ❤

[@michaelt5030]

Commenting for the algorithm.😊

[@nanagaga2001]

I tend to listen to these podcasts while doing something else so I didn't get the benefit of the book cam. But I loved this concept! Can't wait for the second book.

[@Reclaimtherainbow_Gen9]

Aw I have a Minnie Aussie too

[@JadDragon]

This was a great video. Thanks both of you. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[@shadowlazers]

Jesus was a dishonest scam artist cult leader

[@courtneebolton4112]

God can do anything hello!

[@christenh359]

4:42 I’m from Texas but I don’t have a strong accent either. I met some people from Tennessee and boy howdy did my accent get stronger.

[@CynHicks]

Low hanging fruit is not only the easiest to pick but it's the easiest to see.

[@nuroww]

Cameron, greetings from Brazil! The idea for the video was very cool, but I really think the guy to do this one with you should've been Ed Feser (as much as I like Jimmy, who is a great guy and a blessing for us catholics). Jimmy took things way too lightly, but this is a topic that MUST be taken in a deep, very precise manner, otherwise people won't truly understand a) what Aquinas was actually talking about, and how he developed the metaphysical reasoning in each argument; and b) what are the (many and flagrant) problems in Dawkins’ way of thinking. Saying that some of what he wrote “is in the ballpark” of the discussion is an absolute understatement and an unjustified concession by Jimmy: Dawkins doesn’t know the most basic metaphysical principles (let alone the most profound ones), so all he does is frame the discussion in wrong categories, vomiting childish “objections” that don’t hurt Aquinas’ position in the least. Besides, as someone has already said in another comment, “the arguments are 800 years old, but they are exactly as valid today as they were then”. And that’s precisely the point: Aquinas is constructing the arguments based on inescapable features of the very structure of reality, not on feeble and transitory scientific “truths”, which is why Jimmy’s analogy (pre-darwinian x contemporary biology) doesn’t hold water at all. Anyway, I think the video might serve as an interesting introduction to the topic for anyone who’s not yet familiarized. Keep it up, man! God bless you and Jimmy!

[@Michael-bk5nz]

Fears? It’s a poorly written and poorly argued book in which Dawkins accomplishes nothing except to prove that he has no idea what theists believe or why

[@RandonStrutton]

I have an Aussie named Luna too 😂😂

[@janetoliver9561]

Design: God designed the system that allows random mutation and adaptation. God designed the DNA code that is changed. And is random really random? Chaos theory would suggest not.

[@Fiona2254]

Awww my first language is Spanish, I’m Puerto Rican, and every time I’m around Mexicans their accent rubs up on me (spell edit). My sister literally becomes Mexican 😂😂😂

[@jessicasanchez5765]

@Fiona2254 Mexico is huge. Are these Mexican folks you're talking about from a particular area of Mexico? My favorite accent is the Honduran accent. I'm Nicaraguan.

[@eucharistenjoyer]

This is penance, offer it up.

[@danielosetromera2090]

Jimmy doesn't seem to know much about Aquinas' theology, quite honestly. The arguments are 800 years old, but they are exactly as valid today as they were then. This seems to me a very misguided way of "defending" Aquinas in a way he doesn't need to be defended at all. Many people misunderstand Aquinas and the five ways, and a lot of those people (including Dawkins) think Aquinas is talking about infinite regress in time. He's not, at all. He's not talking about the impossibility of an infinite regression backwards in time. He even concedes universe could be eternal! He doesn't care about that (He's taking a cue from Aristotle here). He's actually talking of the impossibility of not a chain of elements linked by cause-effect through time, but of "elements" linked by a hyerarchical dependence here and now. So he's talking about a vertical dependence, rather than a horizontal dependence (that extends backwards in time etc etc).

[@JimmyAkin]

I'm aware that Aquinas is not talking about a temporal regress but an ontological one. I'm also aware he discusses these same matters in more detail in other works (e.g., SCG). However, in my view, this wasn't the place to mount a full defense and exposition of Aquinas's views, as a lecture would be required for each proof and a lot of careful work translating Aquinas's language. I was trying to keep the discussion light in this session, but I understand if you would have preferred a more in-depth discussion of the Five Ways. God bless you! 😊

[@danielosetromera2090]

​Thanks Jimmy, please don't think I'm attacking you or something similar, you're doing great work. Besides that, talking about the misunderstanding of Aquinas (about the regress in time) I was referring to Dawkins, not you. I'm sorry if that didn't come across that well. Greetings from a fellow catholic.​@@JimmyAkin

[@JimmyAkin]

@@danielosetromera2090 No problem! Just trying to clarify the approach I was taking! ☺

[@themanwhowasthursday5616]

Hello Cameron and Jimmy. I hope you're well. I haven't had time to watch your video so my comment may not relate in any direct way to it. Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone has developed any argument in favour of God's existence along "mental health" lines (apart from studies indicating belief in God is positive to mental health). I made this reply some time ago to an atheist comment: The atheist comment was : "Theists see good being present before humans ever existed and I see humanity as defining what is good and evil. Our value judgments are what shape the future of "Existence," and this is achieved through consensus." My reply was: "As a Theist I think our minds are finely tuned to distinguish right from wrong. They are created by and objectively grounded in God. I think the mind unconsciously automatically discerns right from wrong independently of (or congruent with) the beliefs of the person. So if you do something wrong but you think it's right, you may be immune from blame, but the mind will still store the action/event "separately" in the unconscious where it exerts a bad effect on mental health. As an analogy, the conscious/unconscious "good mind" quarantines the event much like a computer does to a virus.But there is a tension between the good and bad and the bad may break out causing mental illness. You can never really get rid of bad events as, of course, they are part of us or our memories, but you can get rid of the emotional component or force of them, rendering them inert. I think this is a discernible aspect of the mind which suggests that consensus comes about through progressive discovery of what benefits the mind or is "integratable" by the mind. It's compared against a pre-existing objective standard that is grounded in God, not humanity defining what's good and evil." Video - "Alvin Plantinga - Does Evil Disprove God?" It seems to me that, the more mature we are , the freer we are from the manifestations of the Pride and Doubt complex ( aggression-submission, sadism-masochism, obsession-compulsion etc) which exists in us in tension and which is an "emotional instability zone". Anyhow I don't see much, if any, argument along this line so I'm wondering how viable it is. All the best. : ) Edit: I guess it would be part of the moral argument for God's existence but, again, I haven't seen it expressed in such a way.

[@gregrice1354]

Consider how much more likely the "atheist" KZbinrs and would-be media "influencers" are motivated by antagonism, emotions, rather than by love, compassion, reason. It was always true in the decades of radio, TV, cable TV, and more recently the first 2 decades of the internet. Talking with Alex O'Conner and other "atheists" who portray the more reason based antagonism and dialog with Christian apologists would prove more fruitful, in all aspects, by simply learning the personal views of key definitions of the terms which will surely be dealt with and discussed, but which only cause confusion without clarification PRIOR to dialogs, and CERTAINLY prior to public debate situations. Even with Christian apologists with doctorate degrees, the failure to establish these terms prior to public dialogs have sadly contributed to generating more heat than light, more irritation and entrenchment of antagonism, than relief of emotions by clarification of intended meanings, for all parties involved - debaters and audiences. I hope to see much improvement in near future, as the opportunities, and the needs to share the True Good News, are increasingly more needed. - regardless of the apologist's view of Eschatology.

[@davidmccarter3429]

I read the God Delusion in a campus book store while standing up. It was an easy skim. That was all it was worth.

[@geomicpri]

Aquinas believed God was pure actuality, with no potential, right? So, no, God doesn’t change. And that includes changing His mind or His knowledge or His Will.

[@MarkPatmos]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Delusion

[@JoBo301]

'The God Delusion' is one of the best things that ever happened to Christianity - shows how bad the atheists arguments are.

[@wet-read]

Maybe look into much better books by atheists? 🤔

[@shadowlazers]

Arguments like.. show any proof that isn't the Bible?

[@shadowlazers]

Arguments like genesis is total nonsense...your God can't be the one because it cannot be loving knowing and powerful? Arguments like catastrophic NATURAL disasters...or like why would a world made for humans be 75%water and 1%drinkable at that.. what it argument for Christianity..me book sayso..and but trees?

[@JoBo301]

@@shadowlazers more like not being able to provide a single piece of evidence for atheism being true

[@tomasrocha6139]

Is that why the number of Christians has not grown but declined since its publication

[@StewWayDrive]

It’s not that you can’t have agency over decisions you know you’ll make in the future. It’s that you can’t know the future and change your mind. In other words, if you know what is going to happen, then you can’t choose to make something else happen. Otherwise you never really knew what was going to happen in the first place.

[@MarkPatmos]

Does God exist outside of time? I don't know the answer to that, or even what it would mean to exist outside of time. But if God has always been in existence.

[@paulh262]

You really need to change the surprised click bait KZbin thumbnail. It's awful.

[@SamHollidayV]

Anyone else catch themselves dropping their G’s now that Jimmy is on this channel regularly? 😂

[@jhoughjr1]

Ive done that forever being from the ozarks too.

[@caulanrupke3755]

Where can I get the shirt Cam has in this video? I don't see it in the shop on his website.

[@branchleader73]

You disagree with Dawkins surprisingly little

[@Subeffulgent]

Jimmy dropping the g's on his ings just make him sounds stupid. He should probably go back to enunciating properly. I say go back because I've listened to him for many years and this is a new thing he's adopted

[@lukekrell5665]

I like to ask people: Can God make a stone so purple that even he can't life it? They usually recognize immediately that this is a dumb question. This helps people to see that the more traditional question is also a dumb question. God's lifting ability is not contingent upon the purpleness of an object; likewise his lifting ability is not contingent on the heaviness of an object.

[@randomusername2761]

You might've thought that was bad, but once you read the section 'debunking' the argument from scripture, you'll begin to lose the will to live.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@4:00: Yes, Dawkins _is_ a biologist, and most definitely is _not_ either a philosopher or a theologian. In fact, books like these are what you get when you let biologists out of the lab.

[@mato8494]

If i would be God… i wouldn‘t need people on youtube, arguing about my existence…. Just saying 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@danCK1990]

if u are that much bothered read david berlinski's - the devil's delusion

[@wet-read]

Better yet: superior books by other atheists.

[@mkl2237]

Why doesn’t Dawkins spend time commenting on Islam? Maybe say things about Allah that he says about YHWH? Hmmmm. 🐓

[@Terabapu3156]

He is coward he can only bark at peaceful christians not at terrorist islam

[@shadowlazers]

Cuz he's more familiar with Christianity

[@mkl2237]

@@shadowlazers. Nope. That’s not the correct answer. It is because he is 🐔

[@tomasrocha6139]

He very openly hates Islam

[@marinanguish9928]

I endorse the "atheist book club" idea of Jimmy's

[@bradsmith9189]

The book hasn’t aged well… On the other hand, Dr Stephen Meyers book, The Return of the God Hypothesis has thankfully, replaced it. And for good reason.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dawkins may forget that a thing still needs a cause, even if a that thing always has existed and always will exist. A cause makes a thing exist. Einstein thought the universe had always existed before the Big Bang Theory convinced him. If he believed any caused object would need to begin to exist, would Einstein have argued that the universe was an uncaused cause?

[@shadowlazers]

Everything within the universe needs a cause .that excluded the universe

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@shadowlazers Why would you say that when it makes me wonder whether you understand my point? "Everything" has at least two senses. It can stand for a group or a collection. It can also denote each object in a group or in a collection. When I tell you that everything needs a cause, I imply that there was no cause or no causality, there would be no one and nothing. The set of existents would be empty.

[@nicolamustard7232]

God is defined as 'Being Itself'. Outside of time and space. He isn't A being that has a beginning, but rather IS the act of being itself.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@nicolamustard7232 You make an excellent point. "A being" suggests that God belongs to either a group, a kind or both. That problem explains partly why I'm a Thomisttic classical theist instead of theistic personalist.

[@tejloro]

Dawkins sure spends a lot of time and energy being mad at a God he says doesn't exist...

[@shadowlazers]

That's a typical theist response no one's mad it's just that religion and Christianity spawn ignorance

[@shadowlazers]

He just doesn't like ignorance

[@tejloro]

@@shadowlazers How ironic is that?!?!?!?!?

[@nicolamustard7232]

​@@shadowlazers Go and read Aquinas - and I don't mean in the thick-headed way of our dear Dawkins here. Really study his work. You will likely need to study Aristotle first in order to understand at least some of what Aquinas wrote. Then come back here and we'll talk about ignorance..... 🤦🏽‍♀️

[@nicolamustard7232]

​@@tejloro 😆

[@killianmiller6107]

God could create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it And then he would lift it

[@borneandayak6725]

According to John Lennox, the heart of Dawkin's book is "who create God"? Its not only strawman but also stupid question, because we Christian never believe in created God.

[@shadowlazers]

It's not a stupid question the answer you gave is the stupid part

[@nicolamustard7232]

​@@shadowlazers unfortunately here, you're showing your ignorance, hun. Christians (I'll speak here for Catholics) believe that God IS Being Itself. God isn't A Being. He is outside of time and space and was not created. He IS. No one created God because He doesn't exist in our time-ruled and materialistic world in which we only understand material things that have a beginning and an end. He doesn't have a beginning, nor an end. He is in the 'eternal now', no end and no beginning. As I said, He IS.

[@paradisecityX0]

"Facing your fears" is sarcasm right? The God Delusion is so bad that Michael Ruse was ashamed to call himself an atheist because of it

[@shadowlazers]

Did you just say that God can or cannot pee and poop at the same time

[@ecoded3033]

Dawkins thinks God is a delusion, design is a delusion…. Methinks he is projecting

[@albertsaxony8092]

Cam, you need to stop soyfacing in your thumbnails.

[@shadowlazers]

Why gullible Christians love it?

[@antoniotodaro4093]

R.I.P Your poor brain cells

[@ignatiusjackson235]

Are you facing your fears of intellectual boredom?

[@sillybanks33]

Claims. No real demonstration from the Christian side, even with a book that reports on the supernatural claims of Mark 16:15-19 that says for believers to go out to the world & preach the gospel and then claims that there are “signs” that people will be able to SEE(signs) the “believers “ DO, NOT claim but actually unbelievers & believers will be able to SEE, with their eyes the believers will be able to do. According to the scriptures says that JESUS says this. Who are the believers that have shown mankind that the signs mentioning Mark 16-19 are accurate, real, true, facts, proof? SHOW the evidence. The Bible is a claim of claims, not evidence that the claims can happen.

[@Joker22593]

Eucharistic Miracles are a huge and interesting set of signs that unbelievers can see.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😂 Show your intelligence came from a nonintelligent source: Oh, I guess you did that!!!

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

Sir I'm not an Apostle

[@sillybanks33]

@@Joker22593 how many Eucharist miracles have been confirmed by the church, because their the only ones that confirm it or is there others out of the church that confirms the church?

[@sillybanks33]

@@tafazziReadChannelDescription RIGHT!!! So does the gospels, letters of Paul and other writers, Old Testament, apocrypha, non canonized text like the book of Enoch speak to the people of that time in context or more to people that were raised in a society with the text that has DOMINATED society for THOUSANDS of years and some raised in the society to believe it’s the truth?

[@shadowlazers]

If your claiming u read the bible to find truth..then concluded its real..u werent looking for truth..

[@nicolamustard7232]

You don't know much about the Bible....

[@pop6997]

Can't believe I missed this! Gah.. Thanks for reading it Cam so I don't have to 😅 Flying Spaghetti is actually terrifying tbh. I never believed in the God that Dawkins rejects anyway.

[@branchleader73]

First book I read about religion, as you say it's really not that bad at all! Gets a bad rap but only because it was so successful.

[@saladfingers.]

Why are people always arguing over what is right and what is wrong? It's pure spiritual pride to believe you have THE truth. No one knows what the hell is going on, bar that something put us here, due to the very intricacies of creation in all it's forms. It's like a bunch of children blindly scrambling to the top of a jungle gym trying to assert moral superiority over the next clueless kid. Baffling.

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

Honestly, this sounds like the Roman objections to Christianity. The Romans had an Empire to prove their view point and I guess you're pointing to science or something similar?

[@saladfingers.]

​@@ultimateoriginalgodI'm not pointing to science. Science is a part of creation as every man made religion is. I'm Catholic. But I respect people of any other faith, whether they be Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists etc. I don't have to vilify them, and beat on my chest saying I'm the king! My way is right! While drowning out their viewpoint and beliefs. Just as I'll listen to a person who has atheistic or agnostic beliefs or whatever. There's no need to make game of each other's beliefs to prove a point. It's insecurity at its best. Show a person who is absolutely convicted in their beliefs, and I'll show you a liar.

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

@@saladfingers. So, that kind of argumnetation only works if you can appeal to a reason for the indifferent attitude to other faiths and your own, like the sucess of modern society or whatever. The Romans said the same thing to the early christians, though their point was that we should worship all gods. I don't see how this is respecting truth, if we know that Christ is made present at Mass with the same confidence that we hold He became incarnite in the womb of the virgin in 1st century Palestine.

[@nicolamustard7232]

Hmmm.... You say you're Catholic, but also say "it's pure spiritual pride to believe you have THE truth." Have you read your catechism lately? I agree we shouldn't be stomping on others' beliefs to make ours look better, but to say there is no objective right or wrong? Sorry hun, you're not very knowledgeable about your faith....

[@TitanOfClash]

36:00 Does Jimmy really think that professor of biology at Oxford Richard Dawkins doesn't know what an ion is?

[@JimmyAkin]

No, I just thought he was being sloppy.

[@jhoughjr1]

Well chemists deal with ions not biologists.

[@TitanOfClash]

@@jhoughjr1 take any general biology textbook of any level and use the search function for the word ion and its derivatives, and it will come up at minimum a hundred times

[@benrex7775]

@@TitanOfClash If we see how sloppy Dawkins is in other fields outside of Biology then perhaps there is a need to explain what an ion is.

[@LeonMarshKennedy-kc4tm]

calling himself an apologist but afraid to read an atheist book lol

[@allenbrininstool7558]

Worst book I have ever read

[@shadowlazers]

.. you mean where is book you've ever claimed to read

[@nicolamustard7232]

​@@shadowlazers ad hominem comments do you no service.

[@sillybanks33]

🤦🏾‍♂️

[@eleniminas7742]

An AI android computing how a human who created him , feels thinks what is human? And the same time that creation its considering itself more intelligent 😂😂That how some people look to me when although they are limited creations try to define their Creator 😂 RIDICULOUS. Hope Jesus Christ of Nazareth opens your spirits and see the Truth. Greetings from Greece 🇬🇷 🎉

[@billybobwombat2231]

Makes far more sense than the bible

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😂

[@borneandayak6725]

I bet you never read the Bible, just like all atheist 😆

[@Terabapu3156]

More than your mind

[@nicolamustard7232]

Do you even know what the Bible is? Hint: It's not a book. It is actually a library of books written at different times, by many different people and in many different genres. But, seeing as you are all-knowing about Christianity, it's teaching, Jesus, the history of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought, the foundation upon which your current society is built, I must assume you already know that.

[@billybobwombat2231]

@nicolamustard7232 you know you're christian god was a minor diety in the Canaanite pantheon prior to his promotion as the one and only, up till around 700bc he had a wife, he has a mum and dad god, but the best is he was a weather god from the north of Arabia prior to his stint in the Canaanite crowd, extend your bible back and you may get a few shocks about your god.

[@someonesomeone25]

Its not a great book. But God is a delusion.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Because Dawkins told you so !!! LOL 😂

[@borneandayak6725]

Yes, atheist's gods is a delusion 😃

[@shadowlazers]

Look..believe whatever u believe..but to get out here and argue for the legitimatcy of your God is silly..there is 0 good evidence to support your claims..just accept you believe it on hope and faith..trying to use honest reason and logic is something you people can't do.u want to feel special .u want to serve ur master..u want a slice of the heavenly pie..and u will shade .lie..deny..or anything thing u need to convince a book of fables is the word of an immortal super wizard who loves u.. just admit u want heaven and will deny reality..so that u may grovel and your masters feet fir eternity

[@nicolamustard7232]

You are clearly an apostle of Dawkins. Straw man, ad hominem, ignorance and arrogance. Yup, just like your leader.

[@enderwiggen3638]

The same could be said for you Think whatever you want, there is zero proof there is no God. That position has been argued weakly and comically. It’s just not convincing. As for your claim there is zero evidence… that’s a lie. There are historical events in the bible that have been confirmed by archaeology. There are also relics that have and are undergoing scientific study which are confirmed to be supernatural … the scientists have zero idea how they can exist because there is no natural cause to explain their existence. There are also many personal revelations that point toward the existence of God. It’s your view that has zero evidence. And Dawkins cringy dim arguments are comedy

[@jacoblee5796]

@@enderwiggen3638 "...there is zero proof there is no God." He didn't say there was no evidence he said there wasn't good evidence, which is 1000% true. If there was good evidence there wouldn't be a debate, there wouldn't be such a thing as other religions or atheists. However, i agree that there is zero proof there is no god, just like there is zero proof there isn't a fire breathing pink dragon living on Mars.

[@enderwiggen3638]

@@jacoblee5796 the church has many relics that science has tested which have miraculous properties that science says shouldn’t exist but there they are

[@jacoblee5796]

@@enderwiggen3638 No they don’t….

[@audioboy1973]

The live chat sillyiness and accent stuff for me is really creating a weird and jarring shift in tone, and feels awkward and disrespectful to Jimmy who is talking so eloquently.

[@vanishingpoint7411]

Is it called apologetics as you should apologising for the nonsense you’re talking about ?? Let start at the beginning,, Easy question . Define and describe your god ..

[@revelation20232]

You were delusional enough to think your music warranted being uploaded to KZbin

[@borneandayak6725]

Simple, our God is historical God, incarnate to the world 2000 years ago. We can prove our God, historically. While your atheistic religion is 100% delusional.

[@JasonJethOfficial]

You don't know that there is a god of atheism?

[@jhoughjr1]

Uncaused caused of space and time that is outside of space and time. Prove me wrong.

[@vanishingpoint7411]

⁠​⁠@@jhoughjr1 that didnt describe what it is . What’s a cause.? And does anything exist if there’s no time or space for it exist in . Do I exist if I exist for zero seconds? Try again , should be easy to describe your God

[@MarkO-xc5pb]

No one knows anything, Still! I like that lest they will Boast, like Washington DC!