Personally, I believe that those who prove themselves to be illiterate don't possess the knowledge required to substantiate any claims either way - let alone influence others by their lack of reasoning.
How can it be a scientific question whether or not God exists? natural sciences do not cover the supernatural. thats why they are called NATURAL science, not supernatural.
@mkv1614 There is no such thing as supernatural. That's just a term invented by our superstitious ancestors. A meaningless word. Of course there can't be anything supernatural. If there is something one might call god, it is not supernatural. Everything that is, is natural. It can't be anyother way. Anyway, The question of wheather god exists, is, to me, something that science should seek to address. Belief in afterlife or god affects human society. Science should give it's answer.
@ikosabre First, how do you know that? There is no use of argueing about that with natural science. All you could say is, you don't find the supernatural using natural science. Proves what?
Second, why do you want to make (natural) sciences to address something that is not its intentional subject? natural sciences job is to describe the how. not the why, not the sense of life, not anything alike. Do you think scientists cannot allow themselves to be religious due to their education?
@mkv1614 First, my point was that the term "supernatural" is completely irrational, because it supposes that there is something outside of this "nature", this "reality". Our understanding of the universe is still limited. What exists outside our understanding, isn't neccesarily "supernatural". If there is god, gods, demons or ghosts, they are not "supernatural", because they exist in this "nature", this "reality". I didn't say that there isn't anything which we currently call
"supernatural". I meant that it isn't really "supernatural".
Secondly, I would say that the claim "there is a god" is an scientific claim. It does answer the "how". It is an ontological argument, which reverberates across human existential existance and morality. Therefore, as science seeks to understand the laws of our universe and that which is "real", it should seek to answer this question. You are right that science is focused on the "natural" world, but that shouldn't be it's
As for your question about scientists being religious, it is nonsensical to me to make a distinction between what one believes to be the natural order of this universe and religious belief. How can they be different? How can a person believe in scientific rasons for the function of our universe and still believe in god? Personally, I can not understand how any intellectual or scientist can believe in god with good conscience, when there is no proof to indicate god.
To me, it is okay to think that it might be possible that there is something that one might call a god. Science can't prove that god doesn't exist per se, because the claim is untestable. But to believe in a christian god because of this possibility is absurd to me.
@ikosabre humans ARE irrational beings. do you call emotions, psyche, dreams, poems, desires, music rational? the world is filled with irrationality. if you say, yes, theres a lot of chemistry going on in the cauliflower in your skull doesnt satisfy me at all.
i think the whole problem came up because of the evangelical / creationist trolls in the US. the trolls grab their holy book, the scientists grab their formula, and voila, two extremists beating on each others opinions.
@ikosabre i just see no sense in having natural science as a replacement for spirituality, for irrationality. people could not allow themselves to be irrational, to be human (some call it to be stupid), especially in front of other scientists / atheists. that elevates the problem even more, making the atheists / scientists be more stubborn on the topic.
i think people should make differences. if you ask about the how, ask the scientists. about the why, ask philosophy / religion.
@ikosabre and the last problem is with hawking, dawkins, etc.these people misuse natural science to try to extinct religion and philosophy ("philosophy is dead" in "the grand design" by hawking).
and multiverse theory(now THAT is untestable,huh?) and things alike are the only spirituality a scientist could allow himself to have,due to his social mind chains keeping him from more open irrationality.more being openly human("being stupid").
Likewise, if you were asking me the question regarding how you approach your meditation/prayer or to express a metaphor better, then I'd probably say "knock yourself out".
But if you're asking if it's preferable to ask god to avoid a big yellow elephant in a figurative room or if you're making a decision which affects others, then no, I wouldn't advice it.
I personally don't believe there's point on asking the question if it's still possible to… well, ask the question.
Human beings are essentially massive conglomerates of cells that have learned to coordinate their functions so incredibly well that it makes us think there must be something more to it. But there isn't. We are the result of mindless natural laws. Consciousness only applies to biological creatures.
dawkins is an idiot you can't prove or disprove at all wether a supreme being created this universe thats just ignorance to say there is proof one way or another
Thats exactly why he said we have a very strong indication and mentioned evidence. You are just putting words in his mouth and then attacking your own misconception.
Most atheists go to pains to point out that we are not claiming "proof" of anything. Even Dawkins isn't absolutely certain there is are no gods and goes to great lenghts to make this clear.
Pretty naive to say he wants to have a dialogue, a friendly conversation, and then win the argument. Sounds like he already has closed ears, and will only hear his own self-fulfilling truth.
@bulldogbell1980 Well Considering what you said was not only silly, but also wrong... just not saying anything in the first place would have worked...
@bulldogbell1980 Its Richard Dawkins. The guy has been talking about it for decades. His eyes have always been open, and hes never seen anything, which is why he reasonably assumes he will win the argument. Naive does not describe him or anything he ever says in the slightest.
@JeffHopkins8 You know what happens when one assumes.... Yes, in my opinion to call someone non-intelligent because of their personal spiritual belief is pretty naive, who's to say they're wrong. I'm sure there are other people in the science field that share his atheist views but resist peeing in others cheerios out of sheer respect or maybe even unsureness of the whole picture. How can Dawkins know for sure when Einstein even had doubts. Any who, have a good day!
where did you ever hear dawkins say he's a 100% sure? he stresses often that you can't ever know anything for sure. You go with whatever is most likely, in other words which has the strongest evidence and theism certainly does NOT
@janjohandealgenman I never said I heard Dawkings say he's 100% sure. I have heard Dawkins call his opposition non-intelligent, and other intellectually demeaning phrases (myths). So are you 100% sure that "theism" is not likely, unlike Dawkins? Dawkins knows how rainbows are created, does he know what the purpose of a rainbow is?
@bulldogbell1980 You asked "how can dawkins know for sure.. etc" I answered he doesn't. And again i'm am not 100% sure of anything, no rational thinking being can ever be. For all I know I am a schizofrenic who is living in a fantasy world, i highly doubt that but you can't ever know for sure.
And as for the purpose of rainbows, there is that word again that theist pretend to understand. Please define the word 'purpose' to me and I will answer your question.
@janjohandealgenman Ok dog, you're right. Nobody can be sure of anything. Confirmed. So if everybody is so unsure, going back to what I originally said, Dawkins is pretty naive, when unsure, to tell others of their wrong, when he doesn't know what right is.
I get why you are religious now, you can't process new information... I already told you it's all about what is most LIKELY. If someone tells you they believe in unicorns there is a tiny chance they might be right but you have every right to call them a moron. If you tell me you believe in an invisible bearded guy who lives in the clouds and keeps us as his little project I feel that I am obligated to tell you that you're a moron.
@janjohandealgenman I've processed your information. I understand. Thank you for all your insight. Keep up the hard fight, I guess anyone can convince themselves of anything right? Just remember it's naive to tell someone they're a moron when it's "likely" they could be right, kind of like bullying. Have a good day boss.
If I claim to believe I am the son of an intergalactic jockey that rides unicorns around the sun, be sure to respect my position. After all you can't know for sure!!
@TheCelticChimp Do you have any archeological evidence of your claims? I tried to grant your words truth but found my soul withering. I would bet the house you're full of it, and that I know for sure. Have a good one and don't rule out what might fit.
I was pointing out that just because I hold a belief, that belief is not automatically worthy of respect, be it spiritual or otherwise. If I make a preposterous claim about what I believe, you won't respect me. You might lie and pretend you do but deep down you'll know I'm a moron. When such beliefs are being peddled to children it becomes necessary to be less polite and point out the stupidity of the claims.
@TheCelticChimp You don't have to tell me, my kids will choose for themselves like I was given the freedom by my parents to find my own fallacies (they were pretty much agnostic). I don't know how you can predict my thoughts it's amazing. I respect all children of God, I can't say I understand all people's position in life but that's not for me to understand. I agree with not expressing the "fear of God" in children but everyone deserves their freedom's.
@SkateObsession I'm not sure you understand what irony, it isn't ironic that you call all atheists arrogant and then after about half a dozen comments of childishness I call you a name. What is more ironic is that you are trying to make out that I'm being childish when you yourself are leaving one sentence responses, each with a smiley face or a "hahahaha". You could say its ironic that you are saying the irony of this is lost on me when you are intact misunderstanding what irony is...
@LightninLew Thank you yet again for going out of your way with another pointless reply that has nothing to do with anything hahahah, you are wonderful for proving points
Well that should just be obvious. If there is in fact some creator/s they would be beyond our furthest possible conception of what God is. It's already a given that it isn't going to be any of the current religions.
Do you think he'll get himself a new t-shirt now to say "We're all at least 94% African but I'm also a bit Neanderthal but Africans aren't"? Or is that kind of truth not the sort he's really interested in?
ahh the guy who asked the question was a brilliant ambassador for christianity, if he is a christian, he took Dawkin's answer lightly, rather than get angry.
Who cares if you think there's a God, or not?? Just live your own truth. Why do people have to judge others for what they believe, as long as it's not hurting or manipulating people? What business is it of anyone's? Oh, this world.
@gregorcollins What business is it of yours to step on my toes for stepping on other people's toes? Why do you have to judge others for judging others? Take your own damn advice you self-righteous fuck knuckle!
@101011001 charming. maybe try putting a name on your acct. a bit too easy to sit at home and call someone names behind a nameless acct. have a good night!
@MrCassavius it's humorous in that they are not comedians, but scientists. When they say something that is even slightly unorthodox, it is kindof funny.
@DIVAD291 I completely disagree with you when you say: "extremist atheist: scientist". Being a scientist doesn´t neceserily imply in being atheist. There are theist scientists. There are evolucionists who believe in God also! And science is very vast! When you take a medicine such as a pill to cure of something, you´re using something developed by science. Maybe what would be more correct to say is: extremist scientists are more probable to not believing in God!
i never said being a scientists meant you were atheist.i only said that the most hardcore atheists were scientists like Dawkins.
tbh i dont understand why you said the part about the pill...i completely agree with you science is really vast but what does it have to do with what i said?
@DIVAD291 Sorry, I don´t know if you were into a discussion or not on youtube. I only saw your comment where you said this: "extremist atheist:scientist
extremist theist:suicide bomber". By that I understood you meant that every serious scientist is necessarily an atheist. Which is not true. That´s why I meantioned the thing about the pill, meaning, we´re surounded by science everywhere. Even in little things in life we use something related to science. Even a doctor we can call one sort of...
@DIVAD291 ...scientist. Otherwise we only had to pray to be cured of something, we wouldn´t have to take medicines. or even better, if we pray regularly, we wouldn´t get sick anyway as God wouldn´t like to see someones who´s worshiping him, sick. But then, I think I got what you meant. And then you asked: "what is an extremist atheist then?" Well, in my opinion, an extreme atheist, would be the one who, not only lacks the belief in God, but also "fights" and tries to change other people´s...
I like this man.He said he cares only about the Truth.Good!He is a true seeker.I suspect that deep down he's desperate for someone to show him that he's wrong about atheism.He's also clearly an intelligent guy who sees the lies and manipulations of organized religion. The big question is can we experience "the other side" in our lifetime?Do we have the tools?
how funny!! if god was really there then how come all the countries that believe in god are allways shagged by everything war earthquak etc... and if blasfemy was so insulting to god then how is richard dawkins still alive?
@LightninLew How is the existence of God a scientific question? Science deals with the application of physical laws to matter and energy. As defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God does not fall within that scope; He is not confined to this universe and He is not bound by physical laws. He exists outside this universe and brought it into existence. Moreover, what scientific experiment could prove or disprove the existence of God? The question is philosophical, not scientific.
@AvadaKedavra1138 U can disprove the "facts" in the bible scientifically like the age of the earth, how man evolved, earth is round and not flat like the bible says, Noah could never fit all species into an arc, there is no historical proof for jesus outside of bible etc.
But mythology is just religion people have stopped believing in and u can argue god´s existence philosophically but in the end... its all just myhology.
@AvadaKedavra1138 Your definition of science is silly, sice when has science been limited to energy & matter? What about anti-matter and other non-matters? Nor is it confined to this universe "what is beyond the universe?" and "what was there before the universe began?" are both valid scientific questions. "how did the universe begin? Was there a God" is certainly a scientific question, but most of the answers are extremely unscientific, this however does not change the question.
@LightninLew Anti-matter isn't anti-matter because it's not "matter" in the sense of not being material, it's anti-matter because its masses and charges are the exact opposite of normal matter. More importantly, though, there are still two huge problems with your claim. First, scientific analysis is anchored in physical laws, whereas most concepts of God say he created the physical universe and its laws. Second, by what scientific experiment do you "test" the "God hypothesis"?
@LightninLew That's not responsive at all. A question is only a scientific question if it can be confirmed or denied through the scientific method, i.e. through repeatable experiments to confirm or reject a falsifiable proposition. What repeatable experiments could you possibly conduct to confirm or deny the existence of God? If none are possible, the existence of God isn't a scientific question. Also, science deals with physical-law-bound phenomena. God doesn't fit that bill.
@AvadaKedavra1138 Science encompasses everything which exists, things like God for which there is no evidence need not be considered. If I proposed to you that if you smashed two 12 tonne spheres of pure gold together at 500mph it would cause a black hole, but presented no evidence, surely there would be no need to consider it. So why do we consider the God theory? Just because there is no attainable answer doesn't mean we should take it seriously.
@LightninLew Of course science doesn't encompass everything that exists, because not all meaningful propositions are testable via the scientific method. The most obvious instance of this is that the proposition "science encompasses everything which exists" is itself not verifiable through the scientific method. What you fail to recognize is that science's domain is inherently limited. And the question of God's existence lies firmly outside it.
@AvadaKedavra1138 That's so wrong it's unbelievable. Science is how we interpret and understand anything and everything around us. Nothing lies outside of it. Nothing. That's the whole point of science. It's not limited at all. The existence of any kind of God lies directly in science. Supreme beings of incomprehensible intelligence have not been proven to exist, therefore the idea should be disregarded like any other failed theory and not taken seriously. At all.
@MrJellyBabiez If you're right, then any and every proposition is testable through the scientific method. But as I pointed out, and no one has responded to, the statement "nothing lies outside of science" is itself scientifically untestable. Your scientism quite literally self-destructs. Plus, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you can say "if X did exist, there WOULD be evidence." So your position is mistaken on that level as well.
@MrJellyBabiez But I want to develop the critique of scientism a bit more. One of the reasons why science is not the sole means of understanding and interpreting everything around is is that scientific inquiry itself is predicated on a whole series of philosophical assumptions (such as the existence of the external world, the regularity of nature, etc.), none of which can be scientifically proven or disproven because science itself presupposes them.
@AvadaKedavra1138 Because one wipes the other out. Isn't the theory that there was a tiny bit more matter than there was anti matter in the creation of the universe; that being why, as far as we're aware, there is only matter?
@SkateObsession It wasn't a fake laugh you arrogant theist. You can tell the man asking the question said it in jest, even if he is religious, he said it as a footnote to his question and knew it would be taken as a joke.
@LightninLew Where in my comment did I express my beliefs on if I'm a theist or not? And you're calling me arrogant? Ironic :) By the way thanks for scrolling through the pages to reply to something I wrote a week ago, you must have a fun life picking youtube fights hahaha
@SkateObsession The phrase "arrogant atheists" pretty much says you're a theist. No atheist would bunch together atheists and insult them, it's like the pope saying "stupid Catholics".
You left a comment and should expect responses no matter how long ago you left it, it isn't very far down the page on this video and is directly below a reply to me. Why should anyone have to justify writing a comment to you anyway?
@LightninLew I see you're in several arguments in this video, most likely several others in many other videos. Thank you for strengthening my point :)
@SkateObsession I'm not in any arguments on this video, I have only replied to three people. One guy about science, got bored of him because he seems to think he knows everything, you who seems to like trying to pick on people's character flaws after reading two sentences from them, and some guy who I made a jokingly racist comment to. I wouldn't call any of these arguments.
@SkateObsession The comments section is for comments, the reply button is for replying. In real life you would call this a conversation, mocking someone for having multiple conversations is a strange thing to do. Even a dolt like yourself should see this.
@SkateObsession You haven't left a single mature comment yet you childish buffoon, there is no such thing as a typical atheist we aren't a group like a religion. We are allowed to be individuals. I'm not sure what I'm making easy for you, this isn't some kind of competition.
@LightninLew Is that the second time you've called me a name? Wow it's as if every post you make, just proves me more and more right. The irony of this is completely lost on you. Hahahahaha this is hilarious. Sad, but funny.
@SkateObsession lol who said my reply was a serious one? i realise youd rather use sarcasm to brush off a dangerous question than to seriously think about it. As is the case with most religious people but... c'est la vie. You're still an idiot.
@kingwillie206 So if you have trouble differing between hearing and seeing, 2 of the 5 main senses, I believe YOUR reply was the dumbest I've ever SEEN.
@kingwillie206 You heard it by reading it out loud to someone? You sure you didn't see it first? Lmfao, I'm fucking with you and you're making it so damn easy for me hahaha. I was already fucking with someone else with the original post, and another Youtube atheist seems to have gone for the bait. Absolutely hilarious!
@SkateObsession I was fucking with you as well and you just don't seem to get it. By the way, your comment was written like a true christian, curse words, immaturity and all.
@kingwillie206 Oh of course you were ;) And who said I was Christian? Oh boy you're confused. I think it's time for you to sleep, you've got a big day in elementary school tomorrow, little one.
@LightninLew I see you're in several arguments in this video, most likely several others in many other videos. Thank you for strengthening my point :)
@UndeadCrabstick I remember asking that when I used to go to church. No one gave me an answer. The two ladies looked at each other and ignored my question.
@PrivateJoker17 i don't know how many Christians you've been exposed to, but don't judge Christians by some that proclaim to be Christian but behave badly..I assure you that most Christians are open minded and accepting of peoples differences. I've come across some pea brained "Christians" myself. I happen to be a Catholic, and i'm lambasted from time to time by some evangelicals..i take it all in stride
Truth conquers all. Imaginary friends cannot answer back, be seen, heard, smelled or felt. None of our neurosensors can detect this 'friend'. That's why they are considered to be imaginary. The friend part is just wishful thinking. If there is any chance that this being exists, he is pretty nasty and not a friend by any stretch of that imagination.
Personally, I believe that those who prove themselves to be illiterate don't possess the knowledge required to substantiate any claims either way - let alone influence others by their lack of reasoning.
Russ078188 5 hours ago
How can it be a scientific question whether or not God exists? natural sciences do not cover the supernatural. thats why they are called NATURAL science, not supernatural.
could not believe dawkins fails on that thought.
mkv1614 1 day ago
@mkv1614 i totally agree. the whole point of religion is to have a leap of faith which kinda puts science to the side.
adammcneil 1 day ago
@mkv1614 There is no such thing as supernatural. That's just a term invented by our superstitious ancestors. A meaningless word. Of course there can't be anything supernatural. If there is something one might call god, it is not supernatural. Everything that is, is natural. It can't be anyother way. Anyway, The question of wheather god exists, is, to me, something that science should seek to address. Belief in afterlife or god affects human society. Science should give it's answer.
ikosabre 1 day ago
@ikosabre First, how do you know that? There is no use of argueing about that with natural science. All you could say is, you don't find the supernatural using natural science. Proves what?
Second, why do you want to make (natural) sciences to address something that is not its intentional subject? natural sciences job is to describe the how. not the why, not the sense of life, not anything alike. Do you think scientists cannot allow themselves to be religious due to their education?
mkv1614 1 day ago
Comment removed
ikosabre 1 day ago
@mkv1614 First, my point was that the term "supernatural" is completely irrational, because it supposes that there is something outside of this "nature", this "reality". Our understanding of the universe is still limited. What exists outside our understanding, isn't neccesarily "supernatural". If there is god, gods, demons or ghosts, they are not "supernatural", because they exist in this "nature", this "reality". I didn't say that there isn't anything which we currently call
ikosabre 1 day ago
"supernatural". I meant that it isn't really "supernatural".
Secondly, I would say that the claim "there is a god" is an scientific claim. It does answer the "how". It is an ontological argument, which reverberates across human existential existance and morality. Therefore, as science seeks to understand the laws of our universe and that which is "real", it should seek to answer this question. You are right that science is focused on the "natural" world, but that shouldn't be it's
ikosabre 1 day ago
only function.
As for your question about scientists being religious, it is nonsensical to me to make a distinction between what one believes to be the natural order of this universe and religious belief. How can they be different? How can a person believe in scientific rasons for the function of our universe and still believe in god? Personally, I can not understand how any intellectual or scientist can believe in god with good conscience, when there is no proof to indicate god.
ikosabre 1 day ago
To me, it is okay to think that it might be possible that there is something that one might call a god. Science can't prove that god doesn't exist per se, because the claim is untestable. But to believe in a christian god because of this possibility is absurd to me.
ikosabre 1 day ago
@ikosabre humans ARE irrational beings. do you call emotions, psyche, dreams, poems, desires, music rational? the world is filled with irrationality. if you say, yes, theres a lot of chemistry going on in the cauliflower in your skull doesnt satisfy me at all.
i think the whole problem came up because of the evangelical / creationist trolls in the US. the trolls grab their holy book, the scientists grab their formula, and voila, two extremists beating on each others opinions.
mkv1614 22 hours ago
@ikosabre i just see no sense in having natural science as a replacement for spirituality, for irrationality. people could not allow themselves to be irrational, to be human (some call it to be stupid), especially in front of other scientists / atheists. that elevates the problem even more, making the atheists / scientists be more stubborn on the topic.
i think people should make differences. if you ask about the how, ask the scientists. about the why, ask philosophy / religion.
mkv1614 22 hours ago
@ikosabre and the last problem is with hawking, dawkins, etc.these people misuse natural science to try to extinct religion and philosophy ("philosophy is dead" in "the grand design" by hawking).
and multiverse theory(now THAT is untestable,huh?) and things alike are the only spirituality a scientist could allow himself to have,due to his social mind chains keeping him from more open irrationality.more being openly human("being stupid").
humans are scientists, but science isnt human.
mkv1614 22 hours ago
@ikosabre Depends largely on the individual situations.
If a perfectly healthy person asked if I think it's okay that they have an extra slice of chocolate cake, I'd probably say "sure, why not?".
But if it's a diabetic asking the question, then I'd probably point out that such a thing would likely kill them.
[CONT…]
Ebvardh 13 hours ago
@ikosabre […CONT]
Likewise, if you were asking me the question regarding how you approach your meditation/prayer or to express a metaphor better, then I'd probably say "knock yourself out".
But if you're asking if it's preferable to ask god to avoid a big yellow elephant in a figurative room or if you're making a decision which affects others, then no, I wouldn't advice it.
I personally don't believe there's point on asking the question if it's still possible to… well, ask the question.
Ebvardh 13 hours ago
Thinking himself wise he made himself a fool.
Moving2U 2 days ago
Human beings are essentially massive conglomerates of cells that have learned to coordinate their functions so incredibly well that it makes us think there must be something more to it. But there isn't. We are the result of mindless natural laws. Consciousness only applies to biological creatures.
TheWhiteStripes3 1 week ago 3
@TheWhiteStripes3 What a wonderfully simple summary. Thank you for posting this :)
SlockNCFC191 1 week ago
dawkins is an idiot you can't prove or disprove at all wether a supreme being created this universe thats just ignorance to say there is proof one way or another
Zaviex 1 week ago
@Zaviex
Thats exactly why he said we have a very strong indication and mentioned evidence. You are just putting words in his mouth and then attacking your own misconception.
Most atheists go to pains to point out that we are not claiming "proof" of anything. Even Dawkins isn't absolutely certain there is are no gods and goes to great lenghts to make this clear.
TheCelticChimp 1 week ago
@Zaviex He never said you could.
kingwillie206 4 days ago
Nice one again from Richard Dawkins.
His final quote has similarities of an equally brilliant statement by the late football tactician Brian Clough.
Private21 1 week ago
I think it is important to acknowledge our ignorance, lest we sound ignorant
bassbreaker 2 weeks ago
Pretty naive to say he wants to have a dialogue, a friendly conversation, and then win the argument. Sounds like he already has closed ears, and will only hear his own self-fulfilling truth.
bulldogbell1980 2 weeks ago
@bulldogbell1980 Do you know what self-fulfilling truth means?? It's not even the right phrase.... You should, maybe try opening your ears son.
00movieman00 2 weeks ago
@00movieman00 What phrase would you like?
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980 Well Considering what you said was not only silly, but also wrong... just not saying anything in the first place would have worked...
00movieman00 1 week ago
@00movieman00 Thanks for the enlightenment, have a glorious day!
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980 Its Richard Dawkins. The guy has been talking about it for decades. His eyes have always been open, and hes never seen anything, which is why he reasonably assumes he will win the argument. Naive does not describe him or anything he ever says in the slightest.
JeffHopkins8 1 week ago
@JeffHopkins8 You know what happens when one assumes.... Yes, in my opinion to call someone non-intelligent because of their personal spiritual belief is pretty naive, who's to say they're wrong. I'm sure there are other people in the science field that share his atheist views but resist peeing in others cheerios out of sheer respect or maybe even unsureness of the whole picture. How can Dawkins know for sure when Einstein even had doubts. Any who, have a good day!
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980
where did you ever hear dawkins say he's a 100% sure? he stresses often that you can't ever know anything for sure. You go with whatever is most likely, in other words which has the strongest evidence and theism certainly does NOT
janjohandealgenman 1 week ago
@janjohandealgenman I never said I heard Dawkings say he's 100% sure. I have heard Dawkins call his opposition non-intelligent, and other intellectually demeaning phrases (myths). So are you 100% sure that "theism" is not likely, unlike Dawkins? Dawkins knows how rainbows are created, does he know what the purpose of a rainbow is?
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980 You asked "how can dawkins know for sure.. etc" I answered he doesn't. And again i'm am not 100% sure of anything, no rational thinking being can ever be. For all I know I am a schizofrenic who is living in a fantasy world, i highly doubt that but you can't ever know for sure.
And as for the purpose of rainbows, there is that word again that theist pretend to understand. Please define the word 'purpose' to me and I will answer your question.
janjohandealgenman 1 week ago
@janjohandealgenman Ok dog, you're right. Nobody can be sure of anything. Confirmed. So if everybody is so unsure, going back to what I originally said, Dawkins is pretty naive, when unsure, to tell others of their wrong, when he doesn't know what right is.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
I get why you are religious now, you can't process new information... I already told you it's all about what is most LIKELY. If someone tells you they believe in unicorns there is a tiny chance they might be right but you have every right to call them a moron. If you tell me you believe in an invisible bearded guy who lives in the clouds and keeps us as his little project I feel that I am obligated to tell you that you're a moron.
janjohandealgenman 1 week ago
@janjohandealgenman I've processed your information. I understand. Thank you for all your insight. Keep up the hard fight, I guess anyone can convince themselves of anything right? Just remember it's naive to tell someone they're a moron when it's "likely" they could be right, kind of like bullying. Have a good day boss.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980
I totally agree, it is very naive to call someone a moron when it's likely they could be right. You are a moron, can figure out what that implies?
janjohandealgenman 1 week ago
@janjohandealgenman That you are probably as exhausted as I am with this conservation. Thanks for your time, peace out
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980
If I claim to believe I am the son of an intergalactic jockey that rides unicorns around the sun, be sure to respect my position. After all you can't know for sure!!
TheCelticChimp 1 week ago
@TheCelticChimp Do you have any archeological evidence of your claims? I tried to grant your words truth but found my soul withering. I would bet the house you're full of it, and that I know for sure. Have a good one and don't rule out what might fit.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980
I was pointing out that just because I hold a belief, that belief is not automatically worthy of respect, be it spiritual or otherwise. If I make a preposterous claim about what I believe, you won't respect me. You might lie and pretend you do but deep down you'll know I'm a moron. When such beliefs are being peddled to children it becomes necessary to be less polite and point out the stupidity of the claims.
TheCelticChimp 1 week ago
@TheCelticChimp Nice. I never get tired of seeing theists being annihilated by simple reason and logic. Hat's off to you!
Ragnarockalypse 1 week ago
@TheCelticChimp You don't have to tell me, my kids will choose for themselves like I was given the freedom by my parents to find my own fallacies (they were pretty much agnostic). I don't know how you can predict my thoughts it's amazing. I respect all children of God, I can't say I understand all people's position in life but that's not for me to understand. I agree with not expressing the "fear of God" in children but everyone deserves their freedom's.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you ready to accept Yoda as your master?
VerumAdNauseam 2 weeks ago
@VerumAdNauseam who the fuck flagged this, This kicks ass :D
00movieman00 1 week ago
Comment removed
VerumAdNauseam 2 weeks ago
Obvious trolls are obvious.
BBobbyFett 2 weeks ago
Like a boss
LiteralGaming 2 weeks ago
The only reply necessary was the initial laughing by all those on the panel... XD
dumbo800 2 weeks ago 85
(: You could tell both sided enjoyed that.
sloosh6000 2 weeks ago 55
laughter is contageous!
unassumption 2 weeks ago
lol I love this guy
darksepher 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Fuck you apple and your fancy autocorrect!
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession I'm not sure you understand what irony, it isn't ironic that you call all atheists arrogant and then after about half a dozen comments of childishness I call you a name. What is more ironic is that you are trying to make out that I'm being childish when you yourself are leaving one sentence responses, each with a smiley face or a "hahahaha". You could say its ironic that you are saying the irony of this is lost on me when you are intact misunderstanding what irony is...
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Thank you yet again for going out of your way with another pointless reply that has nothing to do with anything hahahah, you are wonderful for proving points
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkateObsession
"What a stupid fake laugh these arrogant atheists give "A HA HA HA HA HA.""
"you must have a fun life picking youtube fights hahaha"
"The irony of this is completely lost on you. Hahahahaha this is hilarious. Sad, but funny."
"nothing to do with anything hahahah"
You are a man-child. The irony is that you are calling other people arrogant and childish.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
If we ever do find out if there is a God, I predict that we're going to find that this God is a lot more complex than humans have ever thought to be.
sketchbookessay 2 weeks ago
@sketchbookessay
Well that should just be obvious. If there is in fact some creator/s they would be beyond our furthest possible conception of what God is. It's already a given that it isn't going to be any of the current religions.
JayMann620 2 weeks ago
@sketchbookessay or so simple, that we can describe it mathematically and come to the (maybe wrong) conclusion, that it does not (necessarily) exist.
dailydols 2 weeks ago
If only more religious people were as affable and nice as that guy.
tomabwhite 2 weeks ago
the black guy seemed serious lol
Benawisan 2 weeks ago
Laughter at 0:06 says it all.
Zebonka 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
elwap0 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has stated, beings from another world out there made man.......... his god
elwap0 2 weeks ago
The guy on the right laughed way to hard and loud.
Jeffersonwazright 2 weeks ago
Do you think he'll get himself a new t-shirt now to say "We're all at least 94% African but I'm also a bit Neanderthal but Africans aren't"? Or is that kind of truth not the sort he's really interested in?
MartinJWillett 3 weeks ago
@MartinJWillett no its just you cant get t-shirts big enough
minkr1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ftlqed 3 weeks ago
@ftlqed Youve seen an imaginary man? I recommend you visit a psychiatrist right away.
sephiroththewise 3 weeks ago
ahh the guy who asked the question was a brilliant ambassador for christianity, if he is a christian, he took Dawkin's answer lightly, rather than get angry.
06alepea1 3 weeks ago
@06alepea1 i know! I wish more Christians are like him.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
Who cares if you think there's a God, or not?? Just live your own truth. Why do people have to judge others for what they believe, as long as it's not hurting or manipulating people? What business is it of anyone's? Oh, this world.
gregorcollins 3 weeks ago
@gregorcollins What business is it of yours to step on my toes for stepping on other people's toes? Why do you have to judge others for judging others? Take your own damn advice you self-righteous fuck knuckle!
101011001 3 weeks ago
@101011001 charming. maybe try putting a name on your acct. a bit too easy to sit at home and call someone names behind a nameless acct. have a good night!
gregorcollins 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregorcollins "as long as it's not hurting or manipulating people?"
You kinda answered your own question there.
ScientificBob 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Turha101 3 weeks ago
Gotta hand it to the questioner.
irkibby 3 weeks ago
This is one cool Christian, given that he is one lol.
DeinosDinos 3 weeks ago
Batman is behind the black guy!
SynysterGates30 3 weeks ago
Jesus Christ *is* real. I boned him last night. Tight as hell.
Cymbeline90 3 weeks ago
Why doesn't 'god' heal amputees??
Because he's not real.
QED
paspax 3 weeks ago
not much humour to be honest, but then again, extremists, on either side, always been humourless
MrCassavius 3 weeks ago
@MrCassavius it's humorous in that they are not comedians, but scientists. When they say something that is even slightly unorthodox, it is kindof funny.
TheMadFedje 3 weeks ago
@MrCassavius
extremist atheist:scientist
extremist theist:suicide bomber
i agree none of them are extremely funny...but one of them is a lot funnier then the other .
DIVAD291 3 weeks ago
@DIVAD291 I completely disagree with you when you say: "extremist atheist: scientist". Being a scientist doesn´t neceserily imply in being atheist. There are theist scientists. There are evolucionists who believe in God also! And science is very vast! When you take a medicine such as a pill to cure of something, you´re using something developed by science. Maybe what would be more correct to say is: extremist scientists are more probable to not believing in God!
Marcoshary 3 weeks ago
@Marcoshary what is an extremist atheist then?
i never said being a scientists meant you were atheist.i only said that the most hardcore atheists were scientists like Dawkins.
tbh i dont understand why you said the part about the pill...i completely agree with you science is really vast but what does it have to do with what i said?
DIVAD291 3 weeks ago
@DIVAD291 Sorry, I don´t know if you were into a discussion or not on youtube. I only saw your comment where you said this: "extremist atheist:scientist
extremist theist:suicide bomber". By that I understood you meant that every serious scientist is necessarily an atheist. Which is not true. That´s why I meantioned the thing about the pill, meaning, we´re surounded by science everywhere. Even in little things in life we use something related to science. Even a doctor we can call one sort of...
Marcoshary 3 weeks ago
@DIVAD291 ...scientist. Otherwise we only had to pray to be cured of something, we wouldn´t have to take medicines. or even better, if we pray regularly, we wouldn´t get sick anyway as God wouldn´t like to see someones who´s worshiping him, sick. But then, I think I got what you meant. And then you asked: "what is an extremist atheist then?" Well, in my opinion, an extreme atheist, would be the one who, not only lacks the belief in God, but also "fights" and tries to change other people´s...
Marcoshary 3 weeks ago
@DIVAD291 ...minds about it. Like a militant. In that way, Hitchens we could call an extremist atheist.
Marcoshary 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
missionpupa 3 weeks ago
I like this man.He said he cares only about the Truth.Good!He is a true seeker.I suspect that deep down he's desperate for someone to show him that he's wrong about atheism.He's also clearly an intelligent guy who sees the lies and manipulations of organized religion. The big question is can we experience "the other side" in our lifetime?Do we have the tools?
WalterWolf000 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WalterWolf000 "I suspect that deep down he's desperate for someone to show him that he's wrong about atheism"
Why would you suspect that?
ScientificBob 2 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins kicks ass.
dwilmer7 4 weeks ago
i can explain everything scientifically: it happened Billions of Billions of years ago, now that's Science.
ikawpipa 4 weeks ago
how funny!! if god was really there then how come all the countries that believe in god are allways shagged by everything war earthquak etc... and if blasfemy was so insulting to god then how is richard dawkins still alive?
jai10121977 4 weeks ago
I'm really impressed by how well this guy handles his response.
mrmacdaddy11716 4 weeks ago 6
@mrmacdaddy11716 i'm impressed how dawkins handled the question lol
TheMadFedje 3 weeks ago
LOL at the two idiots that has been arguing fir days
MrYuGiOhScaler 4 weeks ago 37
@MrYuGiOhScaler that all you have to bring to this discussion?
shame on you!
azmanabdula 3 weeks ago
"...I think it's a scientific question." Wow. Just. Wow.
AvadaKedavra1138 4 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 How is it not?
davdd1032 4 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 It is a scientific question, with a scientific answer, "no".
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew How is the existence of God a scientific question? Science deals with the application of physical laws to matter and energy. As defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God does not fall within that scope; He is not confined to this universe and He is not bound by physical laws. He exists outside this universe and brought it into existence. Moreover, what scientific experiment could prove or disprove the existence of God? The question is philosophical, not scientific.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 U can disprove the "facts" in the bible scientifically like the age of the earth, how man evolved, earth is round and not flat like the bible says, Noah could never fit all species into an arc, there is no historical proof for jesus outside of bible etc.
But mythology is just religion people have stopped believing in and u can argue god´s existence philosophically but in the end... its all just myhology.
The1VoiceOfReason 2 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 Your definition of science is silly, sice when has science been limited to energy & matter? What about anti-matter and other non-matters? Nor is it confined to this universe "what is beyond the universe?" and "what was there before the universe began?" are both valid scientific questions. "how did the universe begin? Was there a God" is certainly a scientific question, but most of the answers are extremely unscientific, this however does not change the question.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Anti-matter isn't anti-matter because it's not "matter" in the sense of not being material, it's anti-matter because its masses and charges are the exact opposite of normal matter. More importantly, though, there are still two huge problems with your claim. First, scientific analysis is anchored in physical laws, whereas most concepts of God say he created the physical universe and its laws. Second, by what scientific experiment do you "test" the "God hypothesis"?
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 I'd say look at the evidence and statistics but seeing as there are noone of either of these, the answer is fairly clear.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew That's not responsive at all. A question is only a scientific question if it can be confirmed or denied through the scientific method, i.e. through repeatable experiments to confirm or reject a falsifiable proposition. What repeatable experiments could you possibly conduct to confirm or deny the existence of God? If none are possible, the existence of God isn't a scientific question. Also, science deals with physical-law-bound phenomena. God doesn't fit that bill.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 Science encompasses everything which exists, things like God for which there is no evidence need not be considered. If I proposed to you that if you smashed two 12 tonne spheres of pure gold together at 500mph it would cause a black hole, but presented no evidence, surely there would be no need to consider it. So why do we consider the God theory? Just because there is no attainable answer doesn't mean we should take it seriously.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Of course science doesn't encompass everything that exists, because not all meaningful propositions are testable via the scientific method. The most obvious instance of this is that the proposition "science encompasses everything which exists" is itself not verifiable through the scientific method. What you fail to recognize is that science's domain is inherently limited. And the question of God's existence lies firmly outside it.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 That's so wrong it's unbelievable. Science is how we interpret and understand anything and everything around us. Nothing lies outside of it. Nothing. That's the whole point of science. It's not limited at all. The existence of any kind of God lies directly in science. Supreme beings of incomprehensible intelligence have not been proven to exist, therefore the idea should be disregarded like any other failed theory and not taken seriously. At all.
MrJellyBabiez 2 weeks ago
@MrJellyBabiez If you're right, then any and every proposition is testable through the scientific method. But as I pointed out, and no one has responded to, the statement "nothing lies outside of science" is itself scientifically untestable. Your scientism quite literally self-destructs. Plus, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you can say "if X did exist, there WOULD be evidence." So your position is mistaken on that level as well.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
@MrJellyBabiez But I want to develop the critique of scientism a bit more. One of the reasons why science is not the sole means of understanding and interpreting everything around is is that scientific inquiry itself is predicated on a whole series of philosophical assumptions (such as the existence of the external world, the regularity of nature, etc.), none of which can be scientifically proven or disproven because science itself presupposes them.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
@AvadaKedavra1138 Because one wipes the other out. Isn't the theory that there was a tiny bit more matter than there was anti matter in the creation of the universe; that being why, as far as we're aware, there is only matter?
Honest question, because I'm clueless.
sam0smith 2 weeks ago
@sam0smith I think that's right.
AvadaKedavra1138 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a stupid fake laugh these arrogant atheists give "A HA HA HA HA HA."
SkateObsession 1 month ago
@SkateObsession It wasn't a fake laugh you arrogant theist. You can tell the man asking the question said it in jest, even if he is religious, he said it as a footnote to his question and knew it would be taken as a joke.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Actually the guy second from the right seemed like a fake laugh. Over exaggerated and such. Just sayin.
joegt123 2 weeks ago
@joegt123 I think that's more to do with him being American than an "arrogant atheist".
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Where in my comment did I express my beliefs on if I'm a theist or not? And you're calling me arrogant? Ironic :) By the way thanks for scrolling through the pages to reply to something I wrote a week ago, you must have a fun life picking youtube fights hahaha
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession The phrase "arrogant atheists" pretty much says you're a theist. No atheist would bunch together atheists and insult them, it's like the pope saying "stupid Catholics".
You left a comment and should expect responses no matter how long ago you left it, it isn't very far down the page on this video and is directly below a reply to me. Why should anyone have to justify writing a comment to you anyway?
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew I see you're in several arguments in this video, most likely several others in many other videos. Thank you for strengthening my point :)
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession I'm not in any arguments on this video, I have only replied to three people. One guy about science, got bored of him because he seems to think he knows everything, you who seems to like trying to pick on people's character flaws after reading two sentences from them, and some guy who I made a jokingly racist comment to. I wouldn't call any of these arguments.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Lol it doesn't matter what you classify them as, my point remains the same. Hahhaha, oh my
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession The comments section is for comments, the reply button is for replying. In real life you would call this a conversation, mocking someone for having multiple conversations is a strange thing to do. Even a dolt like yourself should see this.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Ah what a typical atheist response, name calling. Thank you once again, you're really making this easy for me :)
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession You haven't left a single mature comment yet you childish buffoon, there is no such thing as a typical atheist we aren't a group like a religion. We are allowed to be individuals. I'm not sure what I'm making easy for you, this isn't some kind of competition.
LightninLew 2 weeks ago
@LightninLew Is that the second time you've called me a name? Wow it's as if every post you make, just proves me more and more right. The irony of this is completely lost on you. Hahahahaha this is hilarious. Sad, but funny.
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession Hahaha maybe it's time to grow up and stop being a manbaby
EzThePker 2 weeks ago
@EzThePker What are you talking about, who are you and why w/ould I care about your input on my comment?
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession It's just some solid advice, take it or leave it.
EzThePker 2 weeks ago
@EzThePker Ah nevermind, I see you and your runescape friends have parties in online games for leveling up. The virginity is strong in this one.
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession Oh no, you called me out on a computer-game I played! I must be a virgin. Nice way to prove my advice useful haha
EzThePker 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession lol so someone calling you names proves the existence of god?
Diamondz2k 2 weeks ago
@Diamondz2k Yes. Exactly.
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
@SkateObsession well you sir, are an idiot
Diamondz2k 1 week ago
@Diamondz2k Says the one who legitimately thought that was a serious reply. Lol
SkateObsession 1 week ago
@SkateObsession lol who said my reply was a serious one? i realise youd rather use sarcasm to brush off a dangerous question than to seriously think about it. As is the case with most religious people but... c'est la vie. You're still an idiot.
Diamondz2k 1 week ago
@Diamondz2k You called me an idiot for the third time, you have therefore strengthened the existence of God times three. Good job :)
SkateObsession 1 week ago
@SkateObsession That was the dumbest reply I have ever heard.
kingwillie206 6 days ago
@kingwillie206 Dumbest? Or so intelligent your feeble mind can't wrap around the sheer beauty radiating off of it?
SkateObsession 6 days ago
@kingwillie206 And where did you hear it? I recall typing it.
SkateObsession 6 days ago
@kingwillie206 So if you have trouble differing between hearing and seeing, 2 of the 5 main senses, I believe YOUR reply was the dumbest I've ever SEEN.
SkateObsession 6 days ago
@SkateObsession Come on, what are you 2?
kingwillie206 5 days ago
@SkateObsession Oh, and to answer you question smart ass, I actually heard it while reading it out loud to someone.
kingwillie206 5 days ago
@kingwillie206 You heard it by reading it out loud to someone? You sure you didn't see it first? Lmfao, I'm fucking with you and you're making it so damn easy for me hahaha. I was already fucking with someone else with the original post, and another Youtube atheist seems to have gone for the bait. Absolutely hilarious!
SkateObsession 5 days ago
@SkateObsession I was fucking with you as well and you just don't seem to get it. By the way, your comment was written like a true christian, curse words, immaturity and all.
kingwillie206 5 days ago
@kingwillie206 Oh of course you were ;) And who said I was Christian? Oh boy you're confused. I think it's time for you to sleep, you've got a big day in elementary school tomorrow, little one.
SkateObsession 5 days ago
@SkateObsession That really hurts coming from someone who believes in unicorns....
kingwillie206 5 days ago
@kingwillie206 Ah, I see you are now %100 confused in what you are saying, as I just said I'm not Christian. LOL Oh my
SkateObsession 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LightninLew I see you're in several arguments in this video, most likely several others in many other videos. Thank you for strengthening my point :)
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
hmm.. while I was a kid I always used to wonder - if there is a god, where did he come from?
UndeadCrabstick 1 month ago
@UndeadCrabstick I remember asking that when I used to go to church. No one gave me an answer. The two ladies looked at each other and ignored my question.
LOGAN97sk8s 1 month ago
dawkins is way better than hitchens(wel hes dead now) anyway
ThePhil909 1 month ago
Either your beliefs are based on facts, or their based on nothing at all.
TheSmackerlacker 1 month ago
Damn I miss Hitch!!!! Love Mr Dawkins for sure!!!
jdetuncq 1 month ago
THAT BLACK NAZI BASTARD 1:07 # it'safuckingjoke
munky40903805 1 month ago
EHAHEHHAE
rafaelwaa 1 month ago
What a great guy he was, too bad Christians like him are a minority.
PrivateJoker17 1 month ago
@PrivateJoker17 i don't know how many Christians you've been exposed to, but don't judge Christians by some that proclaim to be Christian but behave badly..I assure you that most Christians are open minded and accepting of peoples differences. I've come across some pea brained "Christians" myself. I happen to be a Catholic, and i'm lambasted from time to time by some evangelicals..i take it all in stride
alsaxe1 1 month ago
love the guy that asks the question,his smile says it all.
naybobdenod 1 month ago
Filmed on a potato.
WillofIceandIron 1 month ago
Truth conquers all. Imaginary friends cannot answer back, be seen, heard, smelled or felt. None of our neurosensors can detect this 'friend'. That's why they are considered to be imaginary. The friend part is just wishful thinking. If there is any chance that this being exists, he is pretty nasty and not a friend by any stretch of that imagination.
saxmanchiro 1 month ago
Now why can't all Christians be like this guy?
sassangorillaz 1 month ago
Yeah. Christians like that I can live with. Even if they're wrong.
therealzilch 1 month ago 19
Haeckel
Uenbg 1 month ago
the guy took it well....
Hamporkcheese 1 month ago