Added: 5 years ago
From: agillesp123
Views: 1,536,704
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (26,597)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Gotta love em both^^

  • get his ear Tyson!

  • I've always wondered what specific Dawkins soundbite Tyson was referring to.. Does anybody have a link to the full video of this?

  • I wouldn't say it Tyson VERSUS Dawkins, its more like Tyson's honest opinion on Dawkins' methods of presenting arguments to people who don't fully comprehend science yet. Love em both!! Such assets to the scientific community and bad-asses at that!

  • what is Tysons full name?

  • "AH. AH, AH, meeting him" LOLZ forgot his name!!

  • Tyson got FUCKING TOLD!!!

  • couldnt agree more with neil on this one. im a huge fan of both of them and i dont think anyone worth hearing discounts either of their geniuses. however, in my opinion, intelligence without an effective means of conveyance is effectively a way to make people who already understand and agree with you feel good. (i'm a huge chris hitchens fan but i've come to realize that his attitude and general demeanor made him more comic relief than agent of change)

  • A lot of snake oil salesmen are cunning and seductive. That doesn't make their worthless product any better.

  • Meth Vs Chef.

  • I like to see how well these amazing men get along even with a hint of opposition. It impresses me to see how well they respond to each other's points without being arrogant. It is a good way to combat the stereotype of arrogant intellectuals.

  • Tyson is brighter than Dawkins imo

  • @HaloSparta Well Tyson is a physicist and Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. I think there's more to physics that the average mind doesn't know than there is to evolution, but I think either one of them could have gone the other's route and been just as good at it. I also feel like Dawkins is more socially capable, Tyson sometimes gets so excited about what he's saying that he sort of..."Happy-yells."

  • AWESOME LOL

  • And then Tyson said: "Watch out we got a badass over here"

  • Tyson just explained almost every teacher I've ever had in public school systems

  • science is interesting and if you dont like it FUCK OFF!! ha X]

  • I just want to say that Tyson is a fucking cool dude. And it's not that he's disagreeing with any of Dawkins points, it's just that he in an over exaggerated way was saying that if dawkins had a bit more salesmanship attitude towards his learnings, more people would be inclined to listen. You can take that anyway you like. I agree with both of these men though. Science is indeed interesting, and fuck you.

  • Richard Dawkins is my hero.There needs to be about a million more like him, with a preponderance of that number in US politics.

  • It's always hilarious to hear an intellectual like Dawkins use a curse word.

  • I wish Dawkins would take his own advice. He's an idiot. 

  • @Orenotter yes because a man who has tons of degrees has worked for universitys and has published several well thought out books does not have an IQ above a 100.

  • @Orenotter He's no idiot. He's passionate about his ideas, which some people believe may undermine the truth of his findings.

  • I disagree. There is no middle ground between absolute right and absolute wrong. If Dawkins had to begin each statement with "I understand that you believe the world is 6000 years old and you worship a dead carpenter, but here is how we can work atheism and evolution into that" it would be wholly unsuccessful and insulting to his intelligence as well.

  • @wankerpanther Mathematically, of course.

    But these two are not beings of pure mathematics. The best way is to co-exist and each should believe the other is utter foolishness but it's better to not stir the pot because the weight of evidence and proof sides with your side.

    Why would you do that? Because it's pragmatic and it worked for about 300 years before the advent of TV.

  • If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.

  • I thought the title was referring to some obscure boxing match I most certainly wanted to see...

  • Tyson needs to understand he's an expert in physics, and just physics.

    He speaks didactically on every single topic.

  • @manonthemount If he's talking to people that want to learn: yes, he does. I've heard him speak on other topics and he's quite funny without becoming tedious.

    The morality evaporates when you're dealing with mathematics and physics, because a theorem must have evidence, and in order to become law it must have proof, not just the belief a pet theory gains.

  • Comment removed

  • oops, we're dealing with some badasses over here

  • I favor Tyson

  • I want to suck Richard Dawkins cock and swollow his cum.

  • STUPID AS FUCK

    

  • They're both atheists, Dawkins is just slightly militant about it

  • @Blurtex33 Tyson actually identifies as agnostic.

  • @IamTetsuo360 One can be an atheist and agnostic simultaneously. Atheism is a lack of a belief in God. Agnosticism is the belief that no one can for sure whether God exists or not. These beliefs have naught to do with each other. One could even be an agnostic Christian, for example. Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between religion and atheism. Every agnostic person either believes in God or doesn't.

  • @macarion Atheism is the belief that there is *NO GOD*. Agnostics (to my understanding at least) believe that *if* there is God, it's not the ones written about in the Christian Bible, The Jewish Torah, the Muslim Quran, or other writings... likely, we must learn to understand the nature of God if at all possible.

  • @kmikl Sorry, but this is not correct. I don't want you to be misinformed. Please look up the definitions of "agnosticism" and "atheism."

  • @macarion Okay.

    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

    Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

    Direct and referenced from Wikipedia, both.

    Where was I incorrect? 

  • @kmikl Well those are the right definitions, but you previously said that agnosticism is the belief that if there is a God then that its not any religious God that is believed now, and thats not true. Agnosticism isn't a belief its a question of knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist who says i believe in jesus and God but I don't think it can be proven or an agnostic atheist who doesn't believe in God, but believes it can't be disproven

  • @smallvillewanabe123 I figured that... I had posted again afterwards :)  I didn't re-read what I typed before I hit post. Mea Culpa

  • @kmikl Your characterization of agnostics was completely wrong. A person is agnostic if they believe that no one can know for sure if God exists or doesn't exist. Agnostics don't have to believe, as you claim, that "if there is God, it's not the ones written about in the Christian Bible, The Jewish Torah, the Muslim Quran, or other writings." You can be an agnostic Christian, an agnostic atheist, an agnostic Buddhist, etc.

  • @IamTetsuo360 Agnosticism is the most redundant word ive ever heard. Everybody is agnostic because nobody can or will ever be able to prove the existance of a god, as god is a supernatural entity. The supernatural by definition can never be understood or proven in this physical world we live in. Therefore everybody must be agnostic. The mere use of this word gives it to much credibility- it means practically nothing.

  • @IamTetsuo360 Tyson is very clear that there is no personal god, the universe is not "designed" and that creationism is nonsense. In Europe or Asia we'd just say he's an atheist, but he's in the USA where there are certain connotations to the word "atheist". If he calls himself an "agnostic" I expect it is in the same manner as his hero the wonderful Carl Sagan.

  • @IamTetsuo360 lol

  • @Blurtex33

    Yeah, those atheists are so militant. What with their... talking. And their facts. And their not condemning anybody to hell for disagreeing.

    Actually, I'm not sure that's what militant means at all.

  • @rkyeun What?

  • @Blurtex33

    Are you being deliberately dense, man?

    Dawkins is not militant. He's opinionated.

    The lack of violence and threats is the difference.

  • @rkyeun You don't have to be violent to be militant, Dawkins himself even called himself a militant atheist.

  • @rkyeun "militant atheism" is a type of atheism in which the atheist takes a firm gnostic stance on the rejection of God. Or, as you said, is highly opinionated. I don't think Blurtex was talking about "militant" in the literal sense.

  • @rkyeun The word militant, which is both an adjective and a noun, usually is used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'.

  • Both Brilliant Men.

  • Was this supposed to be an intelligent response???

  • @VOGELBIRD123 he used the 'f' word!

  • If you don't like it, fuck off.

  • @VOGELBIRD123

    No it was supposed to be funny.

  • i think dawkins got it, he gratefully accepted the rebuke. watch his interview with the female creationist - dawkins is admirably patient and kind with this woman, and that approach makes me want to listen to him, not when he is peevish and indignant. we all know what it is like to be defensive, the pitch of the voice goes up,our voice gets tinny and petulant sounding. but that response invalidates one's stance and makes one seem like an arrogant sort.i think dawkins is smart enough to see this

  • @jamesedwardtheobald lol tinny.

  • @jamesedwardtheobald I think Dawkins called it a rebuke in jest, and NdGT had offered it as constructive criticism.

    Ether way, I think they both fully recognize the fact that they have to deal with anti-intellectuals at the gates often enough that they needn't dress-down the other in front of a group of like-minded people.

    I hope they both have enough depth of character to realize they have the same ultimate goal at heart.

    Cheers!

  • Comment removed

  • @kmikl good point. both gentlemen need to comport themselves and be exemplary! cheers to you! 

  • @jamesedwardtheobald woah woah woah nothing about your tone or emotional level invalidates your stance if in your argument, your conclusion does not follow from your premises, then your stance is invalidated. you stupid fucking retard

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • I would have loved to see the rest of what Dawkins said to respond to Tyson.

  • I despise Dawkins so much but this is pretty funny.

  • @jamesedwardrheobald Are you talking about Dawkin's interview with Wendy Wright from the Concerned Women of America? That was a painful video to watch: such contempt, arrogance and hatred from that women, thinly veiled behind a saccharin smile.

  • I'm not the only one who view Dawkins is pompous and arrogant am I? Tyson tells it how it is about Dawkins.

  • @UnexpectedWonder no, i agree. Dawkin's petulant voice is unbearable; I used to sound like that as an arrogant know-it-all teen, though he sounds much more relaxed here than usual. Hitchens is much more palatable, and a wee bit more humorous, although i am a spiritual person, but not a theist/deist or a part of any codified religion.

  • @jamesedwardtheobald I have heard far too many people say the same thing about anyone British.

  • @xusmcguy oh gosh, no, i love the british accent! i definitely do not equate it with being a snob. though i must say right now i am watching dawkin's interview a weird creationist lady, and he is being very patient, kind and largely humble; perhaps i have just selected a handful of vids where he is very put out, for some reason or other...

  • @jamesedwardtheobald er 'dawkins' ...

  • @jamesedwardtheobald

    No i agree, anyone slightly English sounding and the Americans immediately think that we're being nasty!

    It's that old Hollywood trope of casting us as bad guys that's done it.

    Dawkins bends over backward to be polite, much more so than Hitchens ever did.

  • @xusmcguy I think the term British would be incorrect. Maybe a refined english accent, there isnt a british accent its a collection of countries

  • @UnexpectedWonder

    Except he's never said such a thing.

  • @seansalvador1 I NEVER said he did. I said Tyson tells the Truth about Dawkins. I asked if I was the only one who thought Dawkins to be pompous & arrogant. Obviously, I'm not.

  • @UnexpectedWonder

    pompous

    characterized by pomp, stately splendor, or magnificence.

    arrogant

    making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud

    ---

    Yep, Dawkins is both of those. And he's earned his right to be. His knowledge is splendid and magnificent, and his claims are supported by evidence which does in fact make them have superior right an importance. His pride is well-deserved.

    He doesn't HAVE to dumb it down for them.

  • @superhamzah85 You're going to Niflheim for that one. Odin only permits Loki to make such teasing remarks.

  • subscribe if you like this atheist music please

  • *OBLIGATORY COMMENT WITH ARTICULATE LANGUAGE BROWN-NOSING RICHARD DAWKINS*

  • @jackheaney

    You feel obliged to sniff shit? Weird.

  • @seansalvador1 Was quite clearly referring to the relentless barrage of Atheists arguing with people who quite simply do not want to listen, whilst praising Dawkins to the high heavens.

    When will people realise until one can be proven, the debate will go on and on and on?

  • @jackheaney "people who quite simply do not want to listen"

    Yet they are here...

  • @seansalvador1 I, actually, do wish to listen as an agnostic.

    Most however do not. Scroll down and look at all of the replies - Religious persons simply rest on faith whereas Atheists will point to evidence and call out religions as fairytales. And this is on every video of an atheist nature. It gets tiresome...hey, just my take on the weird world of youtube.

  • @jackheaney

    So we should simply give up and let the faith heads do whatever they want to whoever they want without challenge?

  • @seansalvador1 Nope, of course not. Just pointing out the whole argument and debate has become sterile in my opinion on youtube - neither side wants to listen. After all, how many times can you make a religious person look like an idiot before you feel like you are banging you're head against a brick wall? I'm sure if youtube debates ceased to exist religious extremism wouldn't take over the world.

  • @jackheaney

    Some of them do listen, making it worth it.

  • Comment removed

  • @jackheaney

    What has this got to do with what we were talking about?

  • hey look a video with Dawkins in the title.

    *checks comments*

    Yep, flamewar. Shocker.

  • @1tabligh

    Half of all people will require glasses at some point. Who do I file a law suit against?

  • @superhamzah85 How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

    

  • @1tabligh

    Fusion and fission create those particles, we've done it ourselves. How can you delude yourself into thinking you have the answers, based on the FACT you simply don't know enough about the universe.

    Organic molecules exist in space, on comets, meteorites, they crash into the earth. The earth has liquid water, it has waves, heat, cold. It's the ultimate laboratory for molecules to do all sorts of interesting things. Life is just one of the weird things in this universe.

  • @superhamzah85 You just one of those weird things in the universe.

  • @1tabligh

    Over 99% of all species of life are extinct, they failed because of flaws in their functioning. You cannot claim that of perfect design when both working things, and BROKEN things both exist. You can believe in any invisible gods if you want, next time you visit your doctor, I hope he/she rejects you and says "Creation is perfect, go home." :-)

  • @superhamzah85 How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

  • @1tabligh

    Scientists go with the evidence. The evidence of all gods is not close to zero, it's EXACTLY zero. The correct position on any god is to discard it until evidence turns up.

  • @superhamzah85 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?

  • @1tabligh

    Yes, that includes all beings, even the supreme being. Your supreme being gets angry, anger is an evolved emotion to deter enemies due to being afraid of damage.

  • What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

    All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe

  • @superhamzah85 next time you visit your doctor

    __

    So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!

    Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "next time you visit your doctor"!

    Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!

    The argument of an IGNORANT!

    Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

  • @1tabligh

    Your argument is entirely a logical fallacy:

    "I cannot explain this, therefore Allah did it. End of story."

    You are a child, with childish conclusions. Childish and LAZY.

  • @1tabligh

    Do you know the places on earth with the highest level of religious belief are illiterate and uneducated areas. In Africa, the most deprived areas are the most religious. Atheism rises with education and literacy. A child can believe in fairy tales easily, it takes a lot of growing up to actually think properly. You have a long way to go...

  • @superhamzah85 Answer the questions!

    Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!

    Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

    Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!

    The atheist Delusion!

  • Who designed God?

    Don't dodge the questions...God is complex, intelligent - he must have a creator. Your rules, not mine. :-) Don't break your rules.

  • @superhamzah85 Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

    To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.

  • @1tabligh

    Yes..evidence. Of which, you have none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

  • @superhamzah85 Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.

  • @1tabligh

    Then you're beliefs are worthless. I ask Christians, Hindus, to pass their test - ask their gods to grow an amputated limb back. Whoever can successfully do this, has the right god.

    100% failure rate so far. Are you up for the challenge? Post your video evidence, I'm waiting...

  • @superhamzah85 Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.

  • @1tabligh

    I LOOKED through a telescope, I found Muhammad and Islam. I STAND CORRECTED, he was on the moon, fisting Moses.

  • @superhamzah85 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.

  • @1tabligh

    Leprechauns and fairies are not impossible.

  • @superhamzah85 If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.

    If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!

    Quran 21: 22

  • @1tabligh

    There is plenty of confusion, therefore there are more gods. Thank you for proving polkytheism.

  • @superhamzah85 Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,

  • unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.

  • @1tabligh

    If we examine the matter closely, we see that the appearance of materialism in Europe as a school of thought, the severance of men's links with a sublime principle, their imprisonment in the fetters of matter, the choice of science in place of religion—all this was caused by a series of social and historical factors that emerged in the West.

  • @1tabligh

    One of the factors that aroused a widespread reaction in Europe and caused the emergence of freethinking and anti-religious propaganda, was the crushing pressure exerted by the Christian ecclesiastical authorities at the beginning of the Renaissance on scholars who were propounding new scientific ideas. In addition to specifically religious doctrines, the Church was also beholden to certain scientific principles concerning man and the world that it had inherited from ancient

  • @1tabligh primarily Greek— philosophers and that it was placed on the same footing as religious beliefs. Whatever theory appeared to contradict the Bible and these inherited principles was regarded as heretical, and whoever espoused it would be severely punished. The clear contradiction between science and religion created a mutual hostility in both camps.

  • @1tabligh

    Intellectuals and scientists saw tha t the Christian church was enslaving intelligence and thought, preventing the free development of ideas; through its adherence to a petrified systemof thoughtand ananti-intellectual tradition,itwas creating a stifling atmosphere for the man of the new age. Thinkers thus retreated into a painful isolation from religion. These accumulating pressures finally led to violent reactions that engulfed the whole of Europe.

  • @1tabligh ***Skipping to the end of this complete pile of bullshit you've been pasting for many years***

    We can claim to have attained freedom only when we are in step with advancement of the world toward perfection, consciously, and in awareness of the benefits this will bring. To act in obedience to nature or historical inevitability is not freedom, for when man ignores his own welfare to follow the dictates of nature, this is nothing other than slavery or blind obedience.

  • @1tabligh

    I used to go on tablighi trips, jamaat...3 days mostly but done a 10 days once. They are as mindnumbing as you - you have no mind left now - you're a drone, a shell of a human being...that's why you can no longer communicate like one.

  • @superhamz...Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.

    Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being.

  • @superhamzah85 The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)

  • @1tabligh Since Islam regards this world as the tillage of the hereafter, it is acceptable that man should regard it as a means. Through choosing the correct path and acting virtuously man is in fact preparing his own life in the hereafter. But if man regards the world not as a passage leading to a higher, eternal life but as an aim and goal in itself, his meaningless attachment will deprive him of happiness and prevent him from growing towards perfection.

  • @superhamzah85 Unless a man is possessed of a firm and stable faith he remains a stranger to the ways of those who know God. His scepticism grows. He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading.He discounts anything that his sciences do not prove or even try to prove for him.

  • @1tabligh

    YOU ARE FAILING, don't you see that?

  • @superhamzah85 The basis of religious thinking is thus left untilled and untended. He considers undeserving of attention any problem which cannot be taken in isolation from all religion, be judged by its outward appearance, and proved by experiment. Having grown used to scientific language, with its formulae and equations, he regards religious matters as lightweight and commonplace.

  • @1tabligh you FAIL

  • @superhamzah85 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.

  • @1tabligh

    Science knows this:

    /watch?v=O7YV6iIxTJ0&feature=r­elated

  • @1tabligh

    Your god will die, here is the evidence:

    /watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o&feature=c­hannel_video_title

  • @superhamzah85 When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws,

  • @superhamzah85 when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

    Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator,

  • @superhamzah85 a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

    Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!

    Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

  • Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”[5].

    Gallup surveys have found that the world's poorest countries may be the most religious.

  • @1tabligh

    Commenting on some of the above studies in The Daily Telegraph, Lynn said "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

  • @superhamzah85 Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!

    How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

    How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?

  • @superhamzah85 Because the science is materialism. People have lost faith in spirituality, which is the TRUE path of humanity. Where is the science taking human species exacly? Towards the weapons of masdestruction and death. Ancients were talking about spirituality because they believed we ALL share it with our mother earth. Our heart shares the vibration with our earth. We ARE all connected, ancients were not stupid. Although religion has killed spirituality. Materialism has...

  • @dannyday1001 the fuck are you talking about, science is where humanity should put its faith, we've come so far because of science, if the governments werent so fucking idiotic and funded science more we might have been on the way to colonize mars or some shit like that, humanity will become a Type 1 civilisation in some hundred years because of science not because we put faith is some God I believe in God btw but I'm intelligent enough to know science is what is pushing us forward

  • @superhamzah85 Science is based on materialism, of course there is no god in that aspect. - Depression, Stress, Violence, Agression, Evil are natural symtoms of unnatural enviroment, they give you pills to take, in order to treat the symptom. Hunger for wars. 14 000 recored wars, shows, that humanity is on a wrong path. Basically we don't even take a day off before we butcher someone ellse. Humanity has been misguided, and is keeping that path, which will lead towards destruction!

  • @dannyday1001

    Yes, because when you go out to the store, or a restaurant, get your car fixed, you can;t focus due to the constant gunfire and bloodshed.

    Grow up buddy - life is 99% of the time, pretty mundane. So mundane, we love to read about wars, because they're the EXCEPTION to the norm.

  • @superhamzah85 Depression, anger, agression, stress, violence where a man takes a pleasure of doing it, are natural symptoms of unnatural enviroment. You get pills for all kinds of problems created by the same people that are giving you those pills. Nice living in an imagniary world. The world where you have someone ellse do the thinking for you. I don't need to grow up. You need to wake up! Unless you're a lost cause, then there is no hope for you unfortunately!

  • In 1975, Norman Poythress studied a sample of 234 US college undergraduates, grouping them into religious types, and compared their personality characteristics. He found that "Literally-oriented religious Believers did not differ significantly from Mythologically-oriented Believers on measures of intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than religious Skeptics."

  • @1tabligh

    The question today is WHY lower IQ leads to religion - it's a fact. The more intelligent one is, the more likely they have no religion. It's a repeated phenomenon world over.

    The question is not IF you are a dumbass, but why the fact that you're a dumbass leads you to behave on YouTube as if you're DOING ANYTHING worthwhile - when all the evidence suggests you're destroying your beliefs by posting them. :-)

  • @superhamzah85 Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?

    Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?

  • @1tabligh

    @1tabligh

    Nature is not intelligent OR dumb. You need a brain to be intelligent or dumb. Nature is seperate from attributes of intelligence or unintelligence. You're anthropomorphically viewing reality - which leads to false beliefs - like thinking the earth is the centre of the universe, or in your case, thinking "Humans make stuff, humans have brains, everything that makes stuff - must have brains."

    This is why you're arguments are weak, you're a slave to your limits.

  • @1tabligh

    God is not the enlightened conclusion of logical thinking - this is why toddlers can believe it. Because it's simplistic, you're mind was raped as a child - you're suffering now because of it. It took me 20 years to undo this damage, how long will it take you? You need to start critically examining your beliefs.

  • @1tabligh

    It it at all possible that if a being created the intricate functions of a cell - that this being would then proceed to deliberately create flaws in the brain - then because of these flaws - it then decides to permanently torture these incredible cells in a blazing fire, with molten brass - for eternity?

    Would you torture your own robot? No - because you're not THAT insane - as far as I know.

  • @1tabligh

    Is it at all possible for a human being, to create artificial life for the SOLE PURPOSE of bowing to down to the engineer? No. Why is this possible for a divine being?

  • @1tabligh

    Is it possible you do not understand why nature is the way it is? Is it REALLY possible you don't know the origins of the universe? I know what we KNOW, I don't have judgements on what we don't know. I have no belief in gods, because I have no justification to believe in any god, more than another god.

  • @1tabligh

    I have no justification to believe that over a kilogram of greay and white matter (brain) is the ONLY POSSIBLE way for complexity to form. I am not arrogant to think that the way I am, MUST BE the way the universe is. That the way I CREATE, must be similar to the way the universe creates. I am not arrogant enough to do that.

  • @1tabligh

    I am not arrogant enogh to believe that the origins of the universe has APE EMOTIONS like me. Anger, jealousy etc. I am not arrogant enough to think that the origins of the universe - is like a human being - they demand obedience, they seek authority and power over life and death - they punish and reward, they get angry over disobedience, they get jealous over loyalty - they show favours for their own - they show rage to the enemy. I do not think God is an ape.

  • @1tabligh

    I think the origin of the universe is BEYOND anger, is BEYOND worship, is BEYOND love and hatred - is BEYOND the need for approval - is BEYOND punishment and reward. If there is a God, I believe they are FAR SUPERIOR than that. You don't have the power of mind to think of something completely unlike us - God in fact - is EXACTLY like us. God is whatever your mind tells you he is, which in reality is just an extension of who YOU are.

  • @superhamzah85

    Stop replying to him, he is one of the most prolific copy / pasters on youtube, he never responds in kind he simply headers another completely irrelevant copy/paste from the same article on al islam dot c om that he has been pasting from for years now.

    It never addresses your complaints it is simply gibberish!

  • @1tabligh

    /watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4

    Physicists don't believe in gods.

  • @1tabligh

    I'm glad Hussayn was killed, beheaded in the desert. He was a little bitch lol.