Rabbi Shmuley - Idea City 2007 - Part 1

debate? this isn't a debate...

If I wanted to listen to a sermon, I'd go to church. Was there a single intelligent thought in this whole 10 minute comedy routine?

"It still can't explain *exactly* how life started in the first place."

It cant and it never will.. because it is not supposed to!

Why can creationists not get this simple fact into their skulls?

He is a great comedian, but isn't idea city supposed to be about.. err.. ideas?

Yes, actually I have. The humanist presumption that the universe was eternal (no beginning) meant that the big bang theory was opposed for a long time. The presumption that various organs were left over remains of evolution rather than having purpose in their own right stalled investigation into what they actually did. The presumption that evolution would leave over loads of junk DNA meant that investigation into what non-coding DNA did was stalled for 20 years. Do you want me to go on?

The subtleties of church history may have escaped you, but 1) it was the catholic church, not the protestant church that locked up Galileo - I was talking about the protestant reformation, remember? 2) the reason they asked him to recant was actually - well, read it yourself - "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel. Don't rely on Brecht's "Life of Galileo", which was not impartial.

"If all the scientists you mentioned were around today, they'd be atheist/agnostic." Riiiight. Any evidence?

(cont.)It's laughable when the churches turn around and say "MP's should be allowed a free vote but any religios MP's who don't vote the way we want to will be disowned." The churches seem to care more about unborn life than the suffering of thousands, if not millions, of people world wide who could be helped by stem cell research. Do you have any examples of humanism holding back scientific research? I also note you didn't offer any proof for alternative theories to evolution.

So they didn't try to imprison the lock up gallileo? Sarwin held back his thesis for many years because he was rightly scared of the reaction from the religious establishment. P.S if all the scientists you mentioned were around today they'd be atheist/agnostic. And yet again religion is trying to stifle scientific progress - the catholic church, and others, have been spreading horror stories regarding hybrid embryos to scare ppl into their way of thinking... tbc

Religion can hold back. But then, so can humanism. And it was religion (in the form of the Protestant Reformation) which led to the explosion of modern science. Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Maxwell were all believers. Modern modern science has continued to build on their legacy whilst ignoring its foundation.

Any proof of that? And don't you dare refer to the bible. I want independent, falsifiable proof.

You see I don't think you have a clue what scientists mean by theory. it'd not like layman having a theory of their favourite football team winning or a that it might rain tomorrow. A scientific theory generally has decades of proof and fieldwork behind it and it has been tested over and over.

Do you not believe in gravity just because it's a theory? or nuclear power just because it's a theory?

Actually if you'd read some of dawkins non-science book you'd see he does damn the hardcore anti-vivisectionists.

He attacks religion because he views it as a lie, a form of child abuse and a force that would still have us believing the sun goes round the earth.

Religion held back human scientific progress for over 1000 years and they tried to stop or imprison anyone who challenged their view. That's why some of us hate religion.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about regarding the previous comments & Hitler, etc...I doubt Rabbi Shmuley has any sort of opinions that concede with Hitler...

However, dear Rabbi, you do scream like Hitler and sound like a shiny-suit evangelical.

Evolution is rubbish. Doesn't make and ounce of sense in its truest definition. Sure, everthing "evolves" meaning it adapts, but we did not evolve from a single species. God is the creator. Period.

The Rabbi might not be a delusional lunatic but merely a man exploiting his talents to fleece gullible people over in order to persuade them to part with their money. He seems obsessed with associating himself with public figures presumably to benefit from the publicity it would create.

Rabbi Shmuley is just another of one many religious clerics who treat their audience as if they were children. It is both degrading and embarrassing. Their perceived superiority is rude and I hate listening to it. I managed about 7 minutes of the video but could stand no more.

Well, I beg to differ. Darwinism bears no resemblance to what actually happens - neither biological nor social darwinism is an adequate explanation for human sexual behaviour - see David Stove "Darwinian Fairytales" for more (Stove was not a theist) - and the ire which Dawkins reserves for religion isn't turned on other non-scientific ideas - like antivivisectionists destroying science labs in the UK. Dawkinsites are anti-religion, not pro-science.

Maybe it was too much to compare to Hitler, but this guy shrieks frequently in an extremely annoying way. Anyway, his talk does not make too much sense, just a pile of unrelated stupid old jokes.

The real concern wasn't that Shmuley was said to shriek. There's a difference between academic discourse and monologue. Dawkins actually said: "What I heard over that loudspeaker was a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud." Not Richard Pryor or Ben Elton - who would have been a more realistic reference point for the monologue - but Hitler.
Nice one, prof.
And what really gets me is the number of people who won't say he was wrong.

Evolution is about diversty of life not origin of life (abiogenesis)

and since you are a fan of Rabbi (apparently) and he is a fan of Stephene J Ghould,I suggest to read his paper titled

"Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Google it

Space does not permit me to refute this, but evolution is not a scientific fact. It's still got its holes and problems. It still can't explain *exactly* how life started in the first place. Amongst other things.

At best, evolution is only a plausible theory, but nothing more.

A proposition or dogma, such as "God exists," is the sort of thing that can meaningfully be described as true or false. An institution, such as monarchy or marriage, is not. "Theism is not true" is a coherent statement; "Monogamy is not true" is not. The rabbi's whole argument is based on a basic category error.

For best effect, watch with the sound off.

Then ask yourself: would I buy a used car from this guy?

Nice stand-up routine. I skipped through looking for the rebuttal part, but all I found was jokes and some shrieking like Hitler. Where is the rebuttal?

Weak Arguements and some shrieking.

He's a funny guy, but needs to learn some science. He does shriek doesn't he?