Funny to see that from a man who’s shown himself to be wrong in so many bigoted ways yet unwilling to change his beliefs 🤦🏽‍♂️ I was surprised to see this pop up in an account dedicated to Carl Sagan, tbh! I suspect his answer might’ve been different/humbler than simply turning it back on the one asking

He’s pointing out how no one can actually verify that their god is real. Most people just blindly take their parents religion

What is he wrong about?

Greatest answer and response to any close-minded knuckle dragging religious believer. That's why I believe in science and it's also why I'm a spiritualist and not a book thumper

What is it about mankind that they have to create a god? Any god. Why do we have to believe in something else? Something after. Why isn't this enough? Right here. Right now. Get THIS one little life right!

while he is technically correct (and i am Christian), he also in fact does not answer the question

What if a god exists and hates Christians and likes atheists. That’s the point. She’s all “what if you’re wrong”, but Pascal’s wager is flawed because what if you’re wrong.

i’m not denying the question ‘what if i’m wrong?’ if i’m wrong, then i wasted a lot of time and, for your example, i’m going to hell. he didn’t answer the question because he should’ve said what would happen to him if he was wrong. that’s all.

He did answer the question because the question makes no sense. The question implies that there are only two choices, but there are countless choices. Hinduism could be true, in which case we may both be hooped. It makes it seem like there is no risk for a theist, but there is.

that’s a fair point. i suppose i am suggesting that the person is implying ‘and what if im right?’ after the ‘what if you’re wrong’ which might not be fair.

Actually, he does. He uses the concept that all of those same beliefs could be wrong. It is an answer in terms of demonstrating that belief in any of the mentioned religions/belief systems is predicated on the "fortune" of one's birth & is the result of acculturation. He states that in his answer.

📌

Dawkins's reply is a tu quoque, and not especially convincing -- even though I believe he's quite right.

Ima use my accidental intelligence to determine (believe) the universe is unintelligent

I don’t blame him for answering like an asshole. Far too many Christians haven’t given their faith any consideration at all. For him to point out the presumptions of her faith is entirely fair.

Any god worth a damn would take your average atheist over your average MURICAN "christian" any day.

on the flipside we now have rationalists who believe an all-powerful self-improving AI is an inevitability and that they alone are responsible for ensuring it’s a benevolent one, by any horrible means necessary. guess religion was never a requirement for self-important zealotry

These rationalists have very good arguments

not really? it’s the same kind of reasoning religions use, the same black and white moral compass that says you are a net negative human being if you don’t serve the almighty endgame. that you alone are part of something greater than the society you leech off of. all repackaged zealotry

"it’s the same kind of reasoning religions use" not at all. This is a very old abstraction brought up with rigorous information theory. And you know you have no concepts of machine learning out of entering some prompts into ChatGPT

it's all a grift based on one factually wrong hypothesis: - machine learning requires finite resources - all-powerful beings have no conceivable reason to care about human welfare or values - any intelligence sufficiently smarter than us will bypass its prime directive in ways we never considered

- timelessness as a concept does not have a basis in scientific or even rational thought - information from the distant past is inferred and not known to be recoverable - the fullest nature of reality is known to be elusive. it's presumptuous to assume even a perfect intellect could understand it

This is an absolute low level amateur take, sorry

and there’s that technocrat snobbery. you don’t think it’s even a little weird how tech bros like elon musk always seem to expedite human suffering in pursuit of some infeasible ideal? maybe you think someone like him will succeed before the unwashed masses can collect their due?

Although many rationalists are atheists, not all atheists are rationalists. Also, zealotry refers to religion, politics, or ideals. AI is not any of these things, although it does interplay with politics due to regulation. I wouldn't lump in atheists and the AI argument, doesn't hold up.

i would say that a man-made god qualifies as an ideal. people have based their entire value system around contributing to that end. cults have formed around it. people have died as a direct result

Kinda jumping to a conclusion without substantiating the premise there. I don't know anyone who thinks of AI as a god or people who have based their value system on it. This seems like a "going nowhere" conversation only meant to further your own ingrained beliefs against AI so I'll excuse myself.

so because you’ve never heard of it it must not exist. sure

I actually find the answer rather pointless and deflecting.

The simple answer is "I discovered I`m wrong, oh look I have learned something new" and on we all go.

No, the argument makes no sense. If God were real, he would be beyond the simulation. Not within it like a spaghetti monster

The point is we are all atheists about most of the gods human beings have ever believed in. As Dawkins says, "Some of us just go one god further." You are most certainly an atheist about Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, and Ra, and It is only by accident of birth which god anyone believes in today.

Speak for yourself. Just because I like what a carpenter had to say in 1st century Judea doesn't mean I don't believe in the others. I just don't worship them. In fact, at least one keeps sending pairs of corvids around and I wish he'd stop. Trickster gods make me nervous.

He answered perfectly.. Which part did you have issue with... Essentially, There are thousands of 'alleged' gods, why is he wrong for not believing in the one she chose to believe in. 🤔.

He made his position seem equivalent to theirs, which is isn't. That's a massive disservice to science.

I think that was the point. I think the answer is a mirror to the question. "What ifs" are questions that have no difinitive answer and are best used as rhetorical mind exercises

"What if x≠x?" It's not an equation that makes sense logically.

Everything is a rhetorical mind exercise, precisely until action is taken.

No, you have just done what Dawkins did here— you have smugly assumed disingenuousness or bad intent in the question. It's projection. The correct and only answer for a scientist can be: I would change my mind. Instead he got defensive for no reason.

I don't think smugnicity had anything to do with it. Perhaps the devil in the details are whether or not the question was asked in the context of being dead and finding out or being alive and being told it was so. Perhaps that can be explored

To add to this, I had to rewatch to see what exactly was asked. It wasn't "what if...God exists" it was "what if you are wrong" feels personal, if you spend your life worrying about if you did something in the past that was wrong with no way to verify the alternative. That's a horrible life.

A scientist wouldn't take that question personally. I certainly wouldn't. It's a simple objective question with the simplest answer! The whole point of science is to handle being wrong. In fact it's a very pertinent question which people should be encouraged to ask about science.

That’s a great example of someone desperately avoiding the answer to a simple question. 🤣

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Pretentious, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic POS. Who didn’t answer the question asked of him because his ego would not allow him to be questioned by a woman who asked him a question that challenged his ability to admit he doesn’t know everything. But he’s a man so that’s ok isn’t it? 🤷‍♀️🙄

His views on trans issues is gross, but he’s right in this instance. No one can verify their god is real, most people just take their parents religion blindly.

👏👏👏

I prefer the "follow the money approach" to the question. Religion began the moment the first human smelled dinner on the fire and asked himself: "How can I get myself a bowl of that daily stew without breaking my nails digging in the earth, or scrambling over rocks going out hunting?"

Mostly, people are of the faith in which their parents taught them, with a small percentage ever changing. Most, simply become atheist. A few, by percentage, change faith. The same people who taught you about Santa Claus and Reindeer and the Easter Bunny, told you about an invisible man.

Not a bad answer until it turns racist.

I'm IN LOVE!

The prophecy continues to be fulfilled, you are not wrong lady.

I just take this as “all religions are made up and none of them have any more or less merit then the other.” If your faith gives you reason and purpose, that’s great for you and I have no issues with it. The moment you try to push the tenants of your faith on me, however, we’re gonna have problems

Growing up, I was taught to spread Baptist Christianity and even how to do it. I questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

No one bothers to rebuke or blaspheme, Buddha, Krishna, Thor, or Mohammed because the god of the Bible is the one true God.

Pascal's wager is based on faulty logic.

📌

The most simplest one.. That's all I had to hear .

If I'm wrong...all merciful God will forgive me my transgression...

Great speach!

atruepatriot.substack.com/p/where-have...

I love this so much.

And what if ya'll are wrong? Ya'll are fine with lying to yourself and others every day you're whole life? So much for honesty. Nobody can prove if any god exists. So by default, accept the answer "I don't know", and in so accepting, no lies are perpetuated.

“Contact” reframes this simplistic tit for tat! Spinoza’s ‘god’ is making more and more sense!!! Me? Personally?

His answer boils down to this: "What if I'm wrong? What if you're wrong?!" That is sophistry. The classical term is "accusation in a mirror."

He illustrated how silly the question was

No. It's a central question that any intellectually honest person exploring reality must always keep in mind. Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Neil Degrasse Tyson all have answered that very question MUCH BETTER AND MORE DIRECTLY.

Just a point, a tiny point: in the first few pages of one of Dawkins' books - doesn't matter which, they are all clones - he makes a foundational statement. An axiom. ".. but on the balance of probabilities .." The. Balance. Of. Mother. Forking. Probabilities.

Precisely.

What if I’m wrong? What if YOU’RE wrong?

An aside My answer to climate sceptics is- "If we are wrong then all we did was stop destroying the planet and made it a nicer place for all of us to live in.BUT if you are wrong then we're all dead and that's forever"

same!

I just cite how Exxon scientists proved climate change in the 70s then implemented a misinfo campaign for decades. They literally admitted it to Congress.

More a deflection than an answer, and not up to Sagan's standards at that.

It is far from a 'deflection'. It is a direct demonstration of the stupidity of the question.

Demonstrating stupidity is easy. Educating is a challenge. Sagan understood this implicitly. When a layperson asks a scientist "What if you're wrong?", one couldn't ask for a clearer invitation to explain the scientific method. Dawkins chose to be a smart ass rather than an educator.

This question would have been at the end of his discussion, so he'd have already covered most of that. But, yes, Dawkins is acerbic. However, I disagree that his answer is nasty. He's explaining that religion largely depends on birth and that her answer applies to all religions equally.

I didn't suggest his answer was nasty. I suggested it was pedagogically impotent. I presume the whole talk is from back in the God Delusion days anyway, which was in itself, imo, a scientifically and pedagogically wrong-headed enterprise to begin with.

Yeah, we disagree then. The God Delusion book was important to bringing atheism mainstream. It's a very simple book and it points out the obvious: science does not support mythology. Ergo, there's no scientific reason to accept any particular religion's claims.

The mainstream didn't need atheism as much as it needed intelligence. Sagan, an atheist, was mainstream long before the God Delusion came out. A taste of how he might (hypothetically!) have answered a similar question: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZOT...

If by intelligence, you mean education, then I'd say sure. But atheism also needs to be mainstream and accepted, otherwise it's discriminated against by the religious. Also, the attack on education in the US is largely by the Christian right. So, more atheism = more education.

By intelligence, I mean the capacity to inquire, with a healthy level of (self-)doubt, and revise one's beliefs as reality requires. The "new atheism" movement, as I recall it, tended to create dogmatic rather than inquisitive and flexible minds. Dogmatic minds are poor evangelists of intelligence.

We disagree on this, too. Atheism is not dogmatic, and neither were the new atheists. That was a disingenuous religious critique of them. Calling atheism dogmatic is nonsensical. The new atheists promoted critical thinking about the nature of reality and spurred discussion.

Naturalism is not dogmatic. Religion is dogmatic - it invented the notion. Dogma is what members of the church must believe without question. There is no body to set or enforce a dogma for atheists or naturalists. QED.

Christian Right is an oxymoron - Jesus was a pinko.

Asses aren't clever. He was being, if anything, a smart-arse. There is no point in explaining the scientific method to a god-botherer. Science is not the problem. Pointing out that monotheists are atheists of all but one divinity is a rational, and useful point. As was his anti-exceptionalism.

"There is no point in explaining the scientific method to a god-botherer" As both an educator and former "god-botherer", I couldn't disagree more.

You oughtn't to take things out of context.

I don't think I am. It was wise people like Sagan who educated me out of dogmatic religion, not condescending smart-arses 🙂

Excellent!

Is he anti-Juju?

Fire insurance. A planted question no doubt. Pascal was ridiculed immediately - by Voltaire "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists" and other contemporaries, both for its lacunae and its insincerity, violating Pascal's own Jansenism. It's a wonder it persists.

Secular Religions bsky.app/profile/niff...

His response to "what if you're wrong" was "what if YOU are wrong" . That's not a thoughtful argument. That's whataboutism. I hear maga pull that garbage all the time. He could have just said "then I'm wrong".

His response establishes “if I’m wrong, that doesn’t mean your right” but I agree that there was plenty more to say and Dawkins can be clunky. Dawkins is really for people who already made up their mind, in my opinion.

The point is that the question is also a what-aboutism. I do think in his answer he could’ve added that being wrong requires evidence that invalidates a claim. So being wrong means having evidence for the deity we’re talking about.

lol shut up dumbass

Exactly. His was an emotional response, quite aggressive and rather petty. Her question certainly showed more courage than his answer.

Whataboutism occurs just after you've presented me with more than enough evidence and or data you'd think I'd shut it down but instead I just return w smarmy mcsmarmbreath teeheehee There's nothing past present or future quantifiable about this invisible sky faerie who isn't good with money.

You need to actually listen to what he says. He's not pulling whataboutism. He's arguing that the question is simply improper and answers itself.

The question sounded earnest. I don't think they were after a gotcha moment. If the question was on topic I don't see how it's improper. The question can answer itself, if he's wrong he's wrong. Our being born into societies with biases is real but nothing to do with what he was asked.

It wasn't a gotcha, and he gave it a fair and courteous answer. He pointed out that in the context of the question, "what if you're wrong" is a loaded, biased question, with a not-so-hidden built-in assumption -- essentially claiming privileged status for an equivalent, equally unlikely assumption.

The question, though sincere and not intended as a blatant gotcha, was in fact a type of gotcha -- it was the theological equivalent of "why won't you stop beating your wife?"

Improper question? Wow! So he's the know it all then that we must silently obey?? Hell, no!

No it really is a perfect example of whataboutism

Whataboutism is when you bring up something unrelated to the topic at hand, not when you turn the same question back on someone. lol Words mean things, y'all. Look them up sometime.

I thought that's exactly what it means. Example: I commit a felony, go to prison. Someone else commits a felony and doesn't. I say..."what about that guy, he didn't go to prison?"

Came here to say that. Thank you! ✌🏻

Yeah, and he didn’t address the actual question. He just uno reversed it. Yes, words mean things. He didn’t actually answer the question. He just posed a different question that was meant to throw it off. That’s certainly whataboutism

It's not whataboutism though. You may disagree with the way he answered, you may find it condescending, you may say he didn't "actually answer the question," but it is NOT whataboutism.

It totally isn't. It's asking the person who asked the question to examine why they believe what they do & consider what being wrong looks like. He could be wrong too. He started with, we all could be wrong.

Except he doesn’t even remotely believe he is wrong, so no, that’s not what he was doing.

So you can read his mind? He started, we all could be wrong. What if you are wrong? I'm willing to bet everyone is wrong. But we don't stop asking questions and believing in things.

I can hear his words and I’ve followed him for years. Are you done yapping your false opinion at me yet

What if you are wrong? Anyone could be wrong. That's your answer. He answered the question That he believes in his own work is to be expected. Given you have offered no counterpoint & have resorted to being rude, we are done here.

"Yeah, and he didn’t address the actual question." We must not have watched the same clip.

We watched the same clip, and we have different interpretations of the words he used. His ultimate reply was “what if you’re wrong too” which didn’t answer the question. It just poses it again.

"His ultimate reply was “what if you’re wrong too”" Weird that he spoke for so long to only say five words. Guess the rest was just meaningless drivel and he wasn't making any larger argument. How wise you must be to cut through the "noise."

He said “juju” which isn’t a real god to mock religion. He didn’t answer the actual posed question. He side stepped it and twisted it back around. He didn’t have an answer. If you took an answer from that then good for you, but he didn’t answer it.

"which isn't a real god" lol. lmao even

Whataboutism is when you take a question, and counter it with a question about something or someone else, never actually answering the question. Please be an authority before you act as an authority.

📌

“Most simplest?” Is this a college student? I LOVE his response.

Seems combative. Don’t like him.

📌

I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but if there is an omnipotent being, it surely doesn’t need a bunch of monkeys praying to it, that would demonstrate that it is flawed and therefore not omnipotent…🤔

A ‘yeah, but what if you’re wrong’ is more of an idiotic than an iconic response.

Say it louder for the people in back!

It's called faith for a reason.

Maybe we can choose other scientists that aren’t virulent transphobes to make this point? Plenty of scientists out there that are just as eloquent on this point that don’t hate marginalized people they don’t understand idk 🤷🏼‍♀️

To make what point? He didn't actually answer the question, but deflected and then asked it straight back again. There was no point in his response.

My bad for just making an assumption. I figured it was probably at least accurate to the point it wanted to make, but no surprise he just sucks at the stuff he’s supposed to be good at. He’s a shitty dude

Not surprised at the apologists in the mentions. Y’all get blocks, arguing with losers on the internet isn’t worth my time. 🥰😘❤️

Can I get a link to provide evidence of his hatred towards the transsexual community?

No, I don’t owe you shit, random internet dude! Use a search engine, sparky

And, now the "transphobic" tweets that everyone is mad at. Doesn't seem like he's demeaning the trans culture whatsoever, but continue on being ill informed and easily provoked.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence 🫠- Christopher Hitchens (Richard D's best friend, RIP)

Especially as he’s just repeating something Socrates pointed out over 2000 years ago.

He's the worst but people are desperate to gloss over his bigotry- here's one you forgot: he's also a raging islamophobe, to the point of uplifting radical Christians just to bash on islam specifically. Talk about an atheist...

He’s truly a horrible person. Not believing in god is like the only good trait about him. He’s just a white supremacist that made edgelord dorks that hate religion feel like they are smart and reasonable.

The answer isn't even a good one. As you've stated, there are more articulate answers to this question that aren't just "no, you."

Yup! He’s covered in the stench of multiple bigotries and I am disappointed someone would use a Carl Sagan account to promote Dawkins. (Fuck I hope I’m not missing some bad shit about Sagan too, ya never know these days lol)

I wasn’t familiar with him or his views, so thank you for enlightening me on that! How gross. 🤢

He's always wrong

How dare he omit the true religion. Hail Xenu!

As a scientist one of the first things you learn is the scientific method. Oddly this is forgotten whenever God is discussed. I believe in a God who created this World for us. How this was done is for us to figure out.

Don't sully Sagan's legacy with this twatwaffle.

Its a stupid answer because the world’s religions largely agree that the creator embodied the spirit to create life; while there are important differences, there is also near universal agreement on key aspects of “why” we exist, which is beyond the “how” of science.

How's that working out? The various religions of the world cannot find harmony with each other about God because they're too busy finding disharmony with each other about everything else.

I wouldnt say its working out all that well. My point was more that this would have been a more appropriate answer from an open minded and sincere scientist.

Richard Dawkins' upbringing in secular Britain, where approximately 50% of the population identifies as non-religious, is merely coincidental. Such contextual information neither strengthens nor undermines the validity of his thesis.

1000%

But still those observations are done by man and are viewed through the lens of man's experiences and ability to comprehend. Bias forms that view as does acculturation.

Logically, religion is a load of old hooey. In truth, early man realised that when the weather was good, things grew and when it was bad they didn't, he associated that with the heat from the light from the sun and the cold darkness from the moon. He saw them as two gods. One good and one evil.

As time went on, they became by reference God and the Devil. These beliefs were passed on through the generations until the beginnings of scripture. These beliefs were added to, with myths and fireside stories, then transcribed and over centuries, they became early versions of what we call a Bible.

When other distant lands heard of this miracle filled book, it appealed to them, but they had reservations about some of the stories, so they created their own. Now there were two religions then three and so on and so on.Prove me wrong and don't say "faith means not needing proof".

Dawkins now says he's a cultural Christian so he can participate in bigotry. He was always wrong because he was, at his most basic level, an absolute asshole to people. He was the Twitter pile on, in human form, before Twitter existed. He was pre-MySpace ragebait.

Dawkins is not my hero.

I don't think it's a good answer. There are better ones. "What if you're wrong?" Then I'm wrong. What do you think determines if someone is wrong, and what do you think are the consequences of being wrong? His answer is belittling, snide, an attack...he did not answer the question.

"What if you're wrong" is a very important question, and the answer depends on context. Are we talking about measles, or physics, or religion? In the same time that he blathered on about flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorns he *could* have demonstrated why that's a good question,

why it should be asked. It should be asked of anyone who proposed a plan of action...of engineers, scientists, craftsman ("I'm sure that structure is sound." "What if you're wrong?" I"m sure that won't blow up too soon." "What if you're wrong?"

What if I'm wrong that I can drive that twisty road at 10 mph over the posted speed even though the road's wet? What if I'm wrong about my calculations? What if I'm wrong about where the enemy army is? What if I'm wrong that the white crystals in that jar are salt? Or sugar?

Sloughing off the question of "What if I'm wrong?" with condescending twaddle...not admitting that opinions, like decisions, have consequences that need consideration...is dishonest.

Very much.

This is exactly what I was thinking. He could have addressed the question as a philosophical experiment or a lesson in how we should question ourselves and the world around us, rather than treating her question as a personal attack and responding so brusquely.

Its belittling because its a dumb position. What if im wrong? We are inherently wrong; we dont need a what if for that, science wouldnt advance if we figured it all out and religions supposed position in society cant justify why their paths dont always work. Yet they want to define normalcy.

That response (he didn't actually answer) is so racist. "Juju on the mountain" ?? Seriously? What an asshole.

I really like Dawkins and have two of his books.

A great post for all the frustrated people who have no idea what being a Christian really means. I’m glad for you that you’ve again heard what you wanted to hear. Happy Easter.

How very judgmental of you

He didn't actually answer the question

I’m a spiritual agnostic I give everything a chance.. not declaring much… lol 😂

BRILLIANT CLAP BACK!!!!!

Exactly.

The Bible God/s

Of the hundreds of research papers & articles I've written, this is one that gives perhaps the best overall summary of 3 major religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) & how they came to be. #ReligionSky #AtheistSky #HistorySky When The Real Popes Came To Power www.academia.edu/37008493/Whe...

The Jewish Proof Texts? Jewish leaders down thru history knew the truth about their own religion (Judaism), Christianity (they witnessed its creation) & Islam. I'm one person who actually saw them. Everyone should know this. Regarding The Jewish Proof Texts pisoproject.wordpress.com/regarding-th...

Arrius Calpurnius Piso was the main author of the gospels & the main creator of Christianity. The Jews witnessed it and the Pharisees were writing in the Talmud what they knew about the creation of Christianity; including who did it & why. www.academia.edu/10920856/Arr...

Free Inquiry: The Manipulation Of Morality (How Religion Co-Opts American Identity) secularhumanism.org/2022/10/the-...

For God read Marx. Same mismatch between morality and practice.

Marx was right that religion IS the opiate of the people.

How indoctrination begins to work on the mind...

Ideology, including religion and Marxism, rest on beliefs, which are held to be self evident. Economics is a science, based upon testable theory. Marx's grasp of economics was on a par with Jesus' - they saw capital rather than submission to ideology as the driver of inequality.

'Lord Byron And The Inner-Circle' is a paper about Byron and his friends knowing the truth about how Christianity came to be, and inserting hints & clues about that information within their literary works; including Mary Shelley and her 'Frankenstein'. #WorldSky www.academia.edu/48904951/Lor...

Many leaders have & do understand things on a more complex level, but speak to the public on a level that they are able to relate to. If you only think of things on a superficial level, that's all you will know. The world is in reality, extremely complex. Many refuse to accept or learn that.

Book: 'The Harm Done By Religion', 2016 (by Christopher Hitchens, Wendy Kaminer, Richard Dawkins, Mark Crispin Miller). Book Review: www.goodreads.com/book/show/33...

In The Age Of Science, Is Religion Harmful Superstition? www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/ar...

...is the pope wearing a #dress 😐

2017 Ipsos Global Study Shows About Half Of Population Thinks Religion Does More Harm Than Good www.ipsos.com/en/global-st...

Faith & Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous www.scientificamerican.com/article/fait...

It all comes down to religion. If they can indoctrinate people to believe in religion, they can get them to believe anything. How Corporate America Invented Religious America www.politico.com/magazine/sto...

It all comes down to religion. If they can indoctrinate people to believe in religion, they can get them to believe anything. 'One Nation Under God' (How Corporate America Invented Christian America) history.princeton.edu/about/public...

Book Review: 'One Nation Under God' by Kevin Kruse (How Corporate America Invented Christian America) www.kcba.org?pg=News-Bar-...

Crowell Created Conservative Fundamentalism www.salon.com/2015/05/13/c...

Religion is a scam. It has always been used by the worst people (con men, psychopaths) to take advantage of people of low intelligence, the elderly & others who are susceptible, has been so for thousands of years & to keep the elite in power. www.rawstory.com/tammy-faye-a...

Arrius Calpurnius Piso was the main author of the gospels & the main creator of Christianity. The Jews witnessed it and the Pharisees were writing in the Talmud what they knew about the creation of Christianity; including who did it & why. #JewSky #HebrewSky #Ihfo www.academia.edu/10920856/Arr...

The Bible God? 'Adam' aka pharaoh Adammenemes I/Amenemhept, founder of 12th dynasty of Egypt. Pharaoh, who was god to Egyptians, who was author of & the God of Genesis. He played God & Adam in Genesis. 'God' was a royal title. Ancestry Of King Herod Back To 'Adam' www.academia.edu/119985912/An...

Descent of Arrius Calpurnius Piso from King Herod:

The Jewish Proof Texts? Jewish leaders down thru history knew the truth about their own religion (Judaism), Christianity (they witnessed its creation) & Islam. I'm one person who actually saw them. Everyone should know this. Regarding The Jewish Proof Texts pisoproject.wordpress.com/regarding-th...

The LEADERS of the Jews had always known how their religion & later religions began. And, they kept records of their firsthand knowledge so that eventually what they knew could be revealed to all. Regarding The Jewish Proof Texts (Hidden Proof Of Deliberate Fraud) www.academia.edu/122281381/Re...

This! I was watching a documentary on Islam last night, and just blown away by the similarities of what we are seeing in real time today. You get one charismatic person with followers and they can push an agenda through for the masses to follow. Wild.

👍😀💙

It’s mostly about power and control. If one can control another’s belief system then one can control everything they do, think or how they behave. It also benefits the grifters who always resort to colorful variations on the theme of “GOD wants you to make ME rich”

Yes, down thru history religion has been about power & control. It has been used by psychopaths & con artists to get what they want from gullible believers.

How Psychopaths Get Elected

After WWII, instead of creating the state of Israel, we should have abolished Christianity.

How indoctrination begins to work upon the mind:

Once people become religious their mind is set on a process of mental deterioration which happens in stages. After the natural ego is corrupted so that the believer thinks that their self/ego is both soul/God, their mind develops an Ego Feed. That sets triggers of affirmation releasing chemicals.

Organized religion does to the mind the same thing that we see in cults where people are 'programmed'. So, if politicians like Trump can get to religious people by pretending to be one, they are already 'primed' to believe his lies. That's how he got them to help him get elected both times!

Organized religion, certain denominations. Need to define terms

Recommended Book: 'Mostly Harmful' – 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About Religion (by Michael Paulkovich). www.amazon.com/MOSTLY-HARMF...

The author of 'Mostly Harmful' (Michael Paulkovich) is here on BlueSky. Follow him: @michaelpaulkovich.bsky.social

How Indoctrination Begins To Work On The Mind:

How Psychopaths Get Elected

There are so many aspects involved in what makes religion so harmful, toxic & dangerous to society. This is one that few are aware of. Religion is so many bad things; from a legal scam, to psychological warfare & a political tool. How Psychopaths Use Religion www.academia.edu/14933278/How...

Religion is harmful in many ways. We need to keep educating & informing people of the harm that it does. Biblical texts have been the backbone of Patriarchy. We need to break it once & for all! Religion Harm Studies List: pisoproject.wordpress.com/religion-har...

Organized religion was created by ancient rulers as psychological warfare to better control & manipulate the masses with; it is still being used by politicians & religious leaders today to get what they want from gullible believers. Religious belief sets off a process of mental deterioration.

Religion is a mental health issue. Ancient rulers created religion as psychological warfare to better control & manipulate the masses with. Today, it is still used for that. We CAN and MUST defuse it through education. 22 Unique Traits Of Religious People www.academia.edu/98605644/Uni...

Religion is delusion

Yes, it is. Rational Thought: There are differences in the way minds work. There are two different main mind types; a) the rational, reasonable, thinking mind, & b) the 'religious' type that perceives things in simplistic terms ('Either/Or'), aka "reactive mind". www.academia.edu/11700558/Poi...

Keep trying to download. Eventually I'll get it

It is easier to find them at the Piso Project site on WordPress. But not all of my work is posted there, some of it is only in Academia. Books & Research Papers of Roman Piso pisoproject.wordpress.com

He actually doesn’t awnser the question.

George Carlin "He loves you and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes and they always need a little more. Now you talk about a good bullshit story"

*The God Delusion* Seriously? Has there ever been a more apropos title for a book than this? EXCELLENT WRITER!!!

Being wrong gives death and the fear of, a dominion over your life. Your Karma is still yours..

Easter is a REALLY good day for a whole lot of people who like to call themselves Christians to wake up and realize that talking the talk of Christianity and walking the walk of it are 2 very different things. Christ expects you to walk. If you want to talk at the same time, that's fine also.

Religions are a members only club that keeps forcing people to choose. But people still need to be curious about everything, because opinions are like Uranus.

There is one God, different faiths. The fact there are different religions in different areas of the world tells me that many people, from distinctly different cultures, realize there is something greater than us, & they bow in reverence to the Creator of all.

No, they inherited their religions passed down from a time before they knew what caused the weather, or diseases.

Dawkins is a moron.

Unsure how his wrongness on this issue translates to him being wrong on anything else, or on this topic in particular. Fallacy of composition.

All religions are fiction, doesn't require genius to distill it. Your bias (in favor of Dawkins) being triggered is rather telling though.

I have no bias in favor of or against Dawkins. What he says in this clip is true. So, castigating him because you don't like him or something he said isn't rational. It's as filled with unreasonable emotion as those declaring a savior is proved by mere faith

"It's as filled with unreasonable emotion..." The moron supported a fascist and is anti-trans. He deserves to be castigated. You're either lying about your biases, or you agree with his positions.

People believe what they want to believe.

He was wrong. He conflated two categories. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/j...

I was was questioning whether my agnosticism could be wrong at the time & I remember thinking this was a very poor response from Dawkins. He deflected & didn't for a second consider whether he could be wrong, preferring to default to condescending mockery rather than actually thinking about it.

The perfect answer is "wanna bet". The assumptions inherent in Pascal's wager is that God won't know you are putting it on, and there is no cost. Given the answer here both are falsified because which God are you going to bet on.

I don’t particularly like Pascal’s Wager because it has a rather narrow conceptualisation of God as the Christian God, which I do also entertain, but don’t limit myself to. I think Dawkins own inability to see that one could believe in all the Gods is part of my problem w/his response though.

Why are so many bringing up that he's an asshole as if that changes anything?? His being an asshole has no bearing on his point. He's correct. Where you were born and what your parents believe, generally dictate your beliefs. Until you read your scripture for yourself and dump religion altogether.

Dawkins is a shitty human being and attaching him to Sagan's name does Sagan a disservice.

And because of God exists? Way to go.

Agreed

Exactly. Sagan was brilliant and Dawkins just cosplays as someone brilliant

Shitty how/why?

Its disappointing because his early science books were really engaging.

I agree. I’m a bit freaked at that

If he is real, God is either a terrible, mean-spirited entity, or he's not all powerful and has been a liar. Because how can you allow for the death of millions of people on a global scale in your name? The Holocaust, Palestine, and right-wing governments during the pandemic.

He kinda evades the question by putting it back on the questioner. Not Christian, but if it turned out I was wrong… I’d be like “well I am honestly shocked, but fair enough.” Ditto JuJu at the bottom of the sea.

If he'd simply said, "Yeah, I could be wrong", she would have seen this as an affirmation that her belief was correct. Humans aren't always logical. We often judge the merits of an argument by how ardent the arguer is - confidence creates trust (it's why con-men do so well). So he made her answer.

I understand the method. I am interested is what his reaction would actually be if he was wrong - for the comedy value.

A Christian would say it's not an accident; God planned for them to be born already in the loving embrace of the "correct faith". It would then be their duty, as one of the anointed, to spread the "true faith" to the rest of the world. You can't reason with cults, and Dawkins wastes time trying.

Pity Dawkins is so wrong about Musk

False dichotomy is very easy to refute and so well done here.

Not the wisest response to Pascal’s wager I’ve heard. I prefer Jorge Maria Bergoglio’s humanism to Dawkins’ harsh evangelical atheism- he told mother of child with Downs child unfit to live.

I am not wrong. I don’t believe any of the stuff he mentioned.

It's a pretty terrible answer really. He starts with an assumption about the person asking the question. That's not an answer to the question but a misdirection based on nothing.

The only acceptable answer

I've always thought 3 BILLION Chinese can't all be wrong.

Stellar!

Why did that feel low key racist af? 😬

God, & any religion, is a scam. 🌊🇺🇸🇺🇦🌈🟧🌍💙

What if you’re wrong? Oh well, I’m sure it’ll only FEEL like an eternity

That is not an answer. It is a mixture of equivoxation, false equivalence, and big dollop of strawman, all mixed into a meandering word salad. How y'all think this guy is a genius is simply baffling.

Have you read any of his books? Try "The Ancestor's Tale". Then you'll know. Unless your mind is already made up.

Don’t forget Jobu

FFS commonsense right there. SlappingKarma is always there for losers.

The worst thing to happen to humanity was organized religion. Everyone is right and wrong too. The point is to find what fits how you feel about something "Greater than you". Don't take dogma at face value ✌️

This is an underrated comment. I lost religion some yrs back and initially was anti-religion becuz of the dogma. But now I realize that religion can be a great structure for ppl that feel there is something at play bigger than they are. Religion becomes bad when used as a weapon rather than a tool.

100% agree. I grew up in an Evangelical family. I believed in God, that was easy, it was the hypocrisy that was confusing. I felt like a terrible Christian so I started looking elsewhere. Long story short, I landed as a Pagan 🤷

Being in the Marines during the Iraq War era made me reassess my beliefs. It lead me down a road of studying NDEs, Mediums, etc. I believe in something bigger...but God is too small a word for it. I simply study and find truth wherever it can be found.

Exactly. By whatever name or form, "it" IS there. I'm a fan of serious Mediums and also see NDE experiences as vindication of an existence beyond this. My own experiences just made me beyond certain of it

💯

💯

How fervently I agree with him while my brainwashed mind, daily at the mercy of inescapable Catholic ideology even as long ago as 58 years ago, still struggles with even thinking, this is nonsense. Oppressive, emotionally harmful nonsense at that. Misogyny Jesus in your head watching your thoughts.

I would ask that of all of the cited belief systems that attempted to impose on others their personal belief in their religion and insisted on telling ME, an Atheist, that I am wrong!

So straight forward an answer, to the typical question I get from religious nutcakes... what if your wrong... that even they can understand it!!👍👏👏🌊💙

From those that I've come upon, a lot of them feel pressed to ask this question because of the fear of hell, but even fear asking that question in and of itself. It taught me to consider the option that the question may not be criticism as much as it is an exploration to potentially escape.

And there you go!

Good points and totally agree but also quite insulting toward African categorization of “the Juju on the mountain/sea” versus traditional religious practice such as ancestral worship. Yes acknowledge the era but just a sticking point.

It’s glaring how few others even acknowledged this.

It really is. The answer was rude and defensive.

Dawkins had some really great things to say about biology and our shared common ancestry and fucked it all up by being a snobby English bigot

He didn’t have the knowledge to reference his generalized religious attribution and resorted to an era of ignorance. We are all flawed in how we reference viewpoints. As a big fat liberal of Asian descent, I have had to deal with racism from all races including other minorities,even by other Asians.

We may be tribal in nature and have to work at viewing individuals rather than group think but it is a challenge for all of us. I’m not wiping out Dawkins’ accomplishments- just pointed out a blip.

No I totally agree. These off key notes spoil so much of his work. I still want someone to redo his book The Ancestor's Tale without the weird anglocentrism

I thought the same thing. His argument was sufficient without going there.

Its pretty terrible that he bothers to name other cultures deities but because he doesn’t know any African ones he decides to be horribly derogatory and dismissive to African culture despite a wise and varied lexicon of myths and legends he could have bothered to learn.

Unfortunately despite the many good points he often makes about the dangers of superstition he has a very severe case of being english.

Thanks for the vid.✅

To me that's a very simplistic even caviler answer.

And he also based his answer on a superficial assumption: that the questioner was Christian.

He’s 💯 spot on…your faith is dependent on where you are born & raised. How many people who are born & live in India are Southern Baptist or Jewish or Muslim or Pentecostal or Catholic? Same, how many ppl living in Texas or Hindus?

Dawkins too is a product of his culture and time, and probably wouldn't be an atheist (or now "cultural christian") if he was born in a different time or place.

Dawkins… no one else like him. Big fan.

I'm glad to see the people were walking out. I'll take my chances, thank you. None of those other "gods" were seen alive by hundreds of witnesses after they were murdered. Their testimony has been kept alive for over 2,000 years and many people gave their lives rather than deny Him. I'm with Him.

You seem to have not paid attention. In addition to Jesus, many others have been described as "saviors": Buddha, Osiris, Odin, Zoroaster, Salivahana of Bermuda, Zulis or Zhule of Egypt, Osiris of Egypt, Oru of Egypt, Odin of the Scandinavians, Zoroaster of Persia, Baal of Phoenicia.

Literally not a single thing you listed is remotely unique to Christianity.

He didn't answer the question, he just threw it back at her and everyone laughed.

Wrong. He repeated the question verbatim for clarity. Then, rephrased it to expand how her question can be applied to several other faiths. And he finished with a long winded, & politely English way to say, “Your question is silly.”

Explain to me where your interpretation differs from mine? For the record saying a question can be "applied to other faiths" is not an answer. It is avoiding. bsky.app/profile/sunn...

Nobody owes you anything. Go away, you anon sea lion.

LOL If you are unable to engage in intellectual debate don't try.

That's because it's a silly question. "What if only 1,999 of the 2,000 gods you don't believe in aren't real?" Which also assumes that merely CHOOSING the right god is enough. What if the only people who god likes belong to some weird pseudo-Christian cult in South Korea you've never heard of?

Yes but what if none of them are real?

If none of them are real, he's not wrong.

But he says he could be wrong. Want to keep the circle going?

Yes, he could be. So could the Christian. That's what makes it a silly question; it'e essentially asking "What if ANYBODY is wrong?"

But it's not a silly question. Reason being the consequences of his being wrong are different than that of the Christian, or of the Muslim being wrong. Each person's unique POV will mean their answers will differ. All he did was avoid answering.

He answered it fully. There's a thousand ways they could BOTH be wrong, all of which have different consequences. Because it is absurd to assume only one set of consequences is worth worrying about, it is equally absurd to try to avoid just one set of consequences. Silly question is silly.

But you and the speaker only think it is a silly question because of your POV. And as the speaker said your POV is a result of your experience. I have a different experience and a different POV. Why do you get to define my interpretation?

YOUR point of view is irrelevant. "What if you're wrong?" is a question about MY point of view. And I can clearly see that there's a choice of thousands of gods whose existence we could all be wrong about. If you wanted to discuss YOUR point of view, the question should "What if *I'm* wrong?"

What a pompous asshole.

Good answer

Juju is not a deity. Juju is an object of spiritual power. Like a talisman. Orisha are deities. The belief system is Yoruba. And these are inherent to Western Africa, not Central Africa. If you're born in Central Africa, you're most likely to be Christian.

If you're splitting hairs like this, it's likely that you missed the point.

The racism wasn't the intended point, but it sure was blatant.

Yep. Hopefully the message about how we arrive at the cultural religion isn't lost because of it.

Getting a concept about a faith/religion/belief system wrong isn't racist. And it wasn't even blatant. It was just a mistake, simple as that.

a failure to recognize that colonialism has lead to Christianity being the dominant religion and either English or French the dominant languages across much of the continent isn't a simple mistake. It's systemic ignorance that has consequences - an academic claiming expertise needs to do better.

And i find it kind of bizarre that the premise is "you must absolutely everything correct about this or you're a monster/racist/bad." Its faulty logic and puts the cart before the horse. No one is saying colonialism didn't happen, least of all one dude who simply made a simple mistake.

The video above has nothing to do with colonialism in that sense whatsoever. He simply misspoke about the name or nature of a deity. Just because he got one thing wrong about a belief doesn't mean he ignores the colonial problem, nor that Europe caused problems.

no shite!

Christians like to forget/ignore that there is and was a whole world outside of their Jesus. The world existed before Jesus. The world exists after him. If they really want to stick with that, they should look at the ones Dawkins mentioned and what God did for the Jews in Egypt. JC is AntiNazis

Okay. He dissed Zeus. A lightening bolt is on its way...

Of course, you’re a fake and he’s a vile asshole who gives nonbelievers and scientists a bad name.

So he doesn’t answer the question except to say that he could be wrong.

I noticed that his reply was just a deflection not an answer. Too bad.

Whenever I hear; “America is a Christian county”, I ask “what version? Catholic? Lutheran? Baptist? Methodist? Mormon? Puritan? Etc” Each has varying beliefs, even what is a sacrament, and who is a Christian And if they pick a version, then I ask what subsets of that

Are you the Judean People's Front? …. Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

Part of me (albeit a very small part) would like to see the US became a ”Christian Nation” and then watch all the sects war with each other.

I'm an atheist and I think Dawkins is an asshole.

Sure, he’s an asshole, but he was so strongly on to something when describing viruses of the mind that modern pop culture has one of its central tenants baked in.

So what? His being an asshole has no bearing on his point.

Yep. Being an asshole is a subjective assessment of the individual’s personality. In itself, it does not have any bearing upon the accuracy of said asshole’s statement.

Only one religion has demonstrably achieved its goals 😆

Dawkins is just the other side of the fundamentalist coin.. both are ignorant

Always get a laugh out of evangelical atheists

Atheism is faith.

There is a fundamental mechanic to any religion that builds faith into its dogma. Believe because the alternative is wrong. The primary mechanic to an Athiest is generally I see no irrefutable proof therefore I can not believe. Show me some proof and if it is repeatable I shall believe.

Why is it so important to religion believers that atheism is a faith? Is it so you can categorize it with all those other faiths that you think are wrong? It seems to reveal some insecurity. Is someone who thinks it's all bullshit more of a threat than someone who simply believes in other gods?

Of course it is. To have no belief, you must believe there is nothing to believe in.

"Atheism" is just a way to short circuit unwanted attempts to "prove" religion. If one claims they are agnostic because one cannot provide absolute proof there is no deity, the barrage of religious drivel begins. So claiming one is an atheist helps to prevent the river of poop from flowing.

So "atheists" are lying about being atheists to own the religious. Neat!

No. That's not at all what I wrote, but your lying spin is noted. If one uses the likely end point which is "no deity", atheist is a logical conclusion. However one cannot actually prove "no deity" anymore than you can prove there is a "deity". So using your lame argument, all religious are liars.

You said what you said. We can all see.

Yes. Enjoy your brightly colored eggs as you celebrate your vegetative myth.

this gets to the root of your problem. Because you are merely binary, you assume others are the same way. But we're not. I'm completely non-religious. But am capable of freely considering evolving science in thinking about meaning. You need a word like atheism to stem "the poop."

Keep making assumptions with zero evidence and zero proof. You clearly have little science capability or understanding. The only thing I know about you is that you attacked me based on misunderstanding a post I wrote to another person. You lie. That's all I know.

You prove his point.

I’m agnostic. I admit I don’t know, but lean towards non-religion.

I don't make a habit about discussing religion, but in my experience, if you make that statement in a discussion with religious people, they will try to change your lean. The last time I had someone ask my religion & I said agnostic 'cause no proof, they still tried to explain why I was "wrong".

No it’s not. No more than “not being a stamp collector” is a hobby. The absence of or non-belief doesn’t implicitly make it a “faith”.

Atheism isn't "absence of belief." And that's certainly not how Dawkins defines it.

Atheism literally means having no belief in Gods. That's it. There is no normative claim associated with it.

Just tell us you don’t understand Atheism or Dawkins & keep it moving.

Thank you, your inability to defend your first post is affirming.

Buddy, I can’t help you if you don’t understand basic analogies or what words mean. Take that up with your parents or your teachers, random people on the internet aren’t responsible for teaching you things you don’t understand.

Yet it's important enough for you to continue to respond. I can see why you're anonymous.

I’m in my photo getting my arm raised lil buddy. It’s fun to dunk on a self-serious social media posters who don’t understand what words mean. It couldn’t be any less important; it’s just funny.

As I said, anonymous. And your idea of "fun" arguing on social media, is really, really sad. But go on having fun as long as you want. You're muted now, I'm going back to the football.

I’m not sure why you imagined that lying to us about what we believe is somehow going to help you prove your nonsense

When you realize God has made himself manifest for so many in the world in so many forms...God is Christ AND all the other manners in which WE CHOOSE to acknowledge him. I know Christ & by Christ I know that he loves ALL.

As long as you don't come to my door or try to legislate my behavior, we're good.

Why would I do that? Where in ANY of what I said, did you come up with the notion that I am interested in HARMING you?

You didn't. But let's just say that people who believe what you believe don't have the best track record.

Right...so how about you let me actually BE an asshole to you before you start treating me like one?

I didn't. I said: "as long as you don't..." If you don't we've no argument. But you walked in the thread preaching.

I stated my beliefs...with no malice towards other creeds. If that's what you infer, that's for you to wrestle with.

You walked into a place you knew would be full of atheists and stated your beliefs. You didn't state your beliefs in a church or among friends. What purpose could you have for stating your beliefs in the middle of a thread on atheism?... 🤔

Actually NO, I did not know atheists were here gate-keeping. Maybe I missed the point of the OP. Let me go back & re-read.

Gatekeeping? No. Responding? Yes. You stated your beliefs. I stated my position on your beliefs. My position on you beliefs bothered you. And here we are.

How about those kids with terminal cancer. He sure loves those guys! Take that as my payment for your supposed original sin, motherfuckers! Die, die in abject agony and suffering!! Whoooooo... Check how fucking beneovlent and loving I am.. WHOOOO.

🥱

Oh dear. Go to X, it’s full of christofascist fuckwits, they lap this shit up over there.

No, I think I'll stay right here. I'm a black man who voted for Harris & loves the Lord. Have the best day you can.

Fair enough.

Some of those forms are self-contradictory.

Feel free to get in where you fit in, Jesus has room for ALL. Happy Resurrection Day!!

Except the gays. And trans people. And neighbours who covert oxens.. Also, what version of 'the bible' are you referring to? The one that best fits your narrative? www.cambridge.org/gb/bibles/bi...

My sibling is trans & I love them just as much as I did before they transitioned. Why are you attempting to talk down to me when I have not been negative towards you?

The teachings of your (and most other) religions claim such things as a sin.. to be punished by slow, violent death.. Not what I'd define as welcoming.. And where are the 'religious leaders' of today decrying such acts?! Nowhere. They're perpetuating and inciting it. Disgusting.

I can't speak for them, I can only speak to what I know & place my faith in. Could you answer my question now?

How can you have faith in something that claims these things?! By extension, you believe and propagate them, and therefore you deserve no respect (from me, and that's MY choice).

I deserve NO basic respect from you because of what? Claims what things? My whole point is that it is my belief that God loves ALL, even those who CHOOSE not to acknowledge him. I've shown you no disrespect, so I ask again, why are you negative towards me, I have not behaved that way towards you?

The question is why do you see someone questioning your beliefs as disrespectful? I havent disrespected you,simply questioned the assertations you have made that 'god loves all. Factually a) there is no god. b) your chosen deity, through practice of its followers, directly contradicts love for all.

Really? “ loves us all”? Dun look like it when all this shit that’s going on is going on in the name of Christianity. I keep seeing people on TV screaming how Christian they are as they pick up weapons of destruction and murder people they think are not Christians.

I can't speak for them. I count no Nat-Cs as followers of Christ.

Absolute bollocks.

" 'He' loves all". Of whom do you speak? Just wondering who is "he".

I see God as the Father as I have been taught. You don't need to wonder.

This is actually a childish, playground retort. He didn’t answer the question put to him. He dodged it. It doesn’t matter if everyone else is wrong. That’s irrelevant. The question is what if YOU are wrong? The adult answer is, “Then I’ll accept the consequences.” He wasn’t clever; he was cowardly.

What about the Chinese Jesus? Anyone? His resume was much more impressive than his brother the Jewish Jesus.

A stupid answer given by a stupid man, who places himself above all others. His arrogance will see him fall.

That is the best answer ever! And it’s so right. I think people need to believe in something even if it really doesn’t exist. They need to think when they die, they will go on somewhere else and it’s a comfort to them. It’s certainly not because they live their lives according to their beliefs.

How did he know she was a Christian though? Maybe she was just asking the question to see what he’d say? He could have answered with the same points without making assumptions about her or being so rude and dismissive.

We know we’re right and those 9,000 or so other religions are wrong! If that guy isn’t a Dallas Cowboys fan— he’s wrong about that too! 🤬

“… most simplest… “ What if you’re fucking stupid?

Really is that it? His most famous reply? A bit shit really.

There are 3,000 gods in the world. Some people don't believe in 2,999 of them, some people don't believe in one more than that.

He's not.

Happy 420...

I love this so much

Prabhupada was once asked “What if your wrong and there is no God”. The response I recall i read was. He said “if I live my life as if God exists and He doesn’t then what have I lost? But if I live my life as if He doesn’t exist and He does, then I’ll lose everything”

Pascals wager .. disproven multiple times. . What if you pick the wrong god?

Ah see that is where my path differs from the norm. I don’t believe in a single view of God for all. I believe in the idea we have our own personal relationship with whomever we see as our Spiritual Guide. At the end of the day when we lay to bed, did we stay true to our path?

So you're Zoroastrian? I can dig that. Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Nobody disagrees with that.

Thanks for this convo. Now I have another path to research and read about.

Wait till you realise the story of Jesus is just a Canaanite revision of Osiris ....

lol. The stories of Jesus and many others are retold time after time. When the world needs it most and for those who are ready to hear it. We as a society are not ready. Too much ignorance and lack of empathy in the world today. As the saying goes those who don’t learn from history

Yup. That's pretty much what I meant. "There is nothing new under the sun" or however it goes.

One of my favorite memes has Simpsons cartoon of Krishna and Jesus sitting on a cloud saying “okay whose turn is it this time to go back down” 😂

Slow down .. we've gone from pascals wager about one god.. > to Krishna one of thousands of gods?!

I’ve never put a title solely on it. I have a Hare Krishna Kavacha with the Narashima Prayer of a protection inside it. With the St Benedict metal of protection next to it around my neck. I literally have been asked my views from friends so I started journaling it a few months ago 😂

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfh7...

Fuck Dawkins

They blocked me after calling me a "foul mouthed slag"

Love this post! 💯

In the flying spaghetti monster, we believe.

I’ll take my chances.

I love this I am an Amalgamationist Buddhist I am. At least, I think I am.

It's pathetic and childish.

Interesting. I presume Dawkins was talking about there being "No God, or No one Christian only, no others God"? I would guess that "what if you're wrong" for not believing would then free up one more space in Heaven or Hell!? 🤷‍♂️

We are right in fighting for our freedom!

‘The big juju up the mountain’ is a pretty racist way to talk about the religious practices of ‘central Africa’. Like…that’s a lot of different peoples and countries all smushed together and dismissed in one wilfully ignorant statement. I mean, I didn’t expect better, but wow.

It was unnecessary too. That was a big fail.

But he is correct isn't he, if not which religion is correct?

Religion deserves mockery.

U missed the point

No less racist than Christianity violently subjugating native colonized nations while also simultaneously keeping them destitute, defenseless and persecuted for hundreds of years and blaming them for everything. I don't think the scales are in your favor on this point.

And that is what you chose to hear in his answer .. wow.

It's literally the version of a religion in Africa at a point in time mate. You could do some fucking research before jumping on your high horse. He was literally citing several religious beliefs from different times and places.

Oh, please

He dismissed ALL religions. And generalized ALL religions. His point had nothing to do with Africa. He's saying we could ALL be wrong. If anything it's targeting Christianity. It's not racist. 💀 There's just no reason why 1 God is more "real" than any other thing people believe in.