The underlying reason for people believing in God is that they want to live for ever. The only people who tell them they can live for ever also tell them that they must believe in God first.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Answers to the mysteries of the universe should not take away from the "Awe" that one has in god, and feel cheated that there isn't some divine magic. It should deepen the sense of wonder and respect for something to intricate in design.
The argument of "well since science doesn't know how to answer x, y and z, then that proves that there is a divine creator" When in fact, it does not. It is simply unknown, and while science is humble to say "we don't know" it never concedes to "we will never know" and yet religious individuals will berate those who try to understand the universe as if it's trying to defy god in trying to find truth. It should be that trying to find answers is understanding god.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Hey guys learn how to get a hot girlfriend in a week or less. Go to the link in the brackets..
(sn.im / 281nmh)
Remove the space before and after the slash. Quit saying you are ugly. Haven't you seen scores of guys that aren't good looking who have super hot girl friends?
I dont wanna be rude or anything but Im from Sweden and none ...NONE..of our teachers sound this stupid! Sweden have the highest procentage of atheists in the world and we just teach plain evolution. And any teacher throwing bibles around saying Adam and Eve in biology class would get fired faster then a monkey stealing a banana.
@funnystarchild There are more Christians in the US than atheists but what you wrote is true here is the US too. You can't even say "Merry Christmas" on any government owned property without getting sued. All Christmas commercials are now "Holiday" commercials. Atheists claim WE are interfering on THEIR rights. What a joke. BTW, our schools don't teach much science. They're too busy teaching about gay history or latino history or black history. No wonder our kids are idiots.
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL I totally accept that you are entitled to them as well. The difference is that my "beliefs" (or lack of the them) are based on verifiable evidence, whereas yours, if you really are a christian, are based on pure blind fath and a total rejection of evidence.
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL No it doesn't hurt, because I realise that nobody is perfect. Christians may claim not to be perfect but they certainly don't act it, at least, not on You-tube.
As for "Christ". I assume you mean Jesus. There is not even any evidence of his existence. "Christ" is a Greek title, meaning anointed one, not a name, which has been used, in one form or another, for thousands of years. Even the High priests were accorded the title. There were also 4 high priests called Jesus.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
Fob James took a few naps during biology class. And now we can't get national science standards in the US because the apes in the south have yet to evolve. Sorry commentary in the 21st century-a national disgrace.
@PhrygianBlack Quote: "I understood the basic concept of evolution when I was 7. How some adults can't grasp it is beyond me."
Because they dare not allow their minds to understand it. They are so fearful of life and death, if they accepted evolution as true, then they believe that God would punish them, with eternal damnation in Hell.
For a lot of Christians their belief is a security blanket for the morally fearful who cannot handle the realities of life.
@Darwinsman 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 "Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings? "
They are so fearful of life and death, if they accepted evolution as true, then they believe that God would punish them, with eternal damnation in Hell.
____
Those who deny God insist on the conclusion that God is the product of human thought. For example, Some deluded and duped Atheists and the English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, regards the fear of natural forces to have been the origin of religion. ...
"In my opinion, religion is above all founded on fear: fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of defeat, fear of the mysterious and the hidden. In addition, as already remarked, a sentiment comes into being enabling everyone to imagine that he has a supporter in all his problems and struggles.'
This is merely a claim, unsupported by any evidence.
Nonetheless, we can respond that even if we accept the original and fundamental motive for man's belief in a creator to have been fear, ....
this in no way proves that the existence of God is a mere fancy without reality.
If fear motivated man to seek a refuge and if in the course of that search he discovered a certain reality (God), is there any objection to be made?
If fear is the cause for the discovery of a certain thing, can we say that that thing is imaginary and unreal because it was fear that prompted man to seek it out? ....
@1tabligh "can we say that that thing is imaginary and unreal because it was fear that prompted man to seek it out?"
No. But once we realise that the "finding" of this god-figure is actually all about superstition and blind faith, then we can conclude that it's imaginary.
It would surely be illogical to maintain, for example, that the science of medicine has no reality because man has sought and discovered it out of fear, fear of disease and death?
The truth of the matter is that the science of medicine is a reality, irrespective of whether the original motive of man in discovering it was fear of disease and death or some other factor.
@1tabligh "It would surely be illogical to maintain, for example, that the science of medicine has no reality"
Indeed. But not for the reason you give. The ACTUAL reason is because the science of medicine is testable, verifiable, falsifiable. It has real (testable) results in the real world.
@ScientificBob With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
@1tabligh "Dodging ALL the questions " I have no issue with answering any question you wish to throw at me. But I need to know what you are talking about first. What are you replying to? And what is your point?
"Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed*" Theism looks at the world with 2 eyes closed, their ears shut and their brains in hibernation mode. I prefer the "one eye open" option then.
@ScientificBob What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
@ScientificBob Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
@ScientificBob Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "copy paste"!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
@1tabligh I'm ending this exchange of posts. All you do is copy entire sentences from the same page over and over again. I ask you to explain what the fuck you are talking about and what you are replying to, and you respond with more copy-pasted bullocks.
If you are unable to form a sentence by yourself, you shouldn't try to communicate.
@ScientificBob If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
Further, would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells?
If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the materialists.
@1tabligh "Answer the questions!" I will once you are able to explain what the hell you are talking about without copy-pasting every sentence you write down.
@ScientificBob If self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present, whether or not water is necessary; for necessity in the natural sense is merely the necessity produced by the laws and decrees of nature.
@DasKrabbe Then 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?
Did you just google 'scientific sounding stuff' and then just copy 'n' paste it into your comment? Honestly, you're really not making any sense, whatsoever.
@DasKrabbe Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
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?
@DasKrabbe 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?
@1tabligh It's not believed that. You're making that assumption that the universe requires purpose and wisdom by a creator. The classical view is that it's a byproduct of an early event. Maybe a lucky 1 in a trillion event. The chances of life ever occurring through a scientifically discerned method approaches 1 when contrasted with the opportunities it's had in the history of all time. The same principle may be true for the universe.
@TheBreadfan 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?
What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh You don't understand evolution? This is stuff every realistic scientist acknowledges as a product of nature. I'm not keen on explaining the ins and outs, The research is your responsibility to be honest if you want to argue a case for god. Your assumptions about a plan and design boggles my mind when equivalent physical evidence suggests to the contrary. There is literally no cause for you to look to the metaphysical for answers.
@TheBreadfan Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@1tabligh Absolutely not. Physics arranges our universe, perceived 'order' is a byproduct, however it is increasingly becoming more and more disordered through entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe and all matter does have an ultimate destination and that is a heat death.
@TheBreadfan Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh You're totally poeing me aren't you. The universe needed no intelligence or guidance to become what we see today, I believe I already made that point. You're making the wild assumption that it does, despite zero evidence of divine intervention at any level. Logic requires keen observation and understanding of the properties, you however are using the antithesis of logic, no understanding of behavior but self attribution of a property that you neither understand or explains what we see.
@TheBreadfan Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@1tabligh I've heard someone ask me exactly this before. It's such an unusually worded question. I'd just like to say that matter does not govern behavior, behavior is governed by the laws of nature, before I ask you to please reword yourself.
@TheBreadfan Then 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 I'm not deluding myself to believe how the elements created themselves, this is easily reproducible behavior. The natural laws came first, there's also some evidence that they aren't all universal, but relative and variable.
I just wonder how you can delude yourself to think that science needs people like you to make up an explanation and that saying it was 'magic' adequately plugs the gaps (which aren't actually as significant as you believe, which to me is very telling).
@1tabligh -- Or is it that they are more likely to believe that because their mentors, and the rest of the people in their professional community do not allow for the possibility of any belief otherwise? I think that the point of the Ben Stein movie was that anyone who is willing to entertain religious beliefs is ostracized in this community?
@brchful Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@brchful 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?
@1tabligh -- If you believe that nature arose from itself that is called pantheism, and much of the earlier religious traditions hold this view. But this is not scientific, and if I’m to understand most of the atheists arguments against religion it is that they are not scientific.
As to how that can be believed, there are many things in modern physics that seem incredible, and we do not understand anything well enough to be so certain.
@brchful In other words - 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 -- It is not necessarily implicit, no. If you're Richard Dawkins you've made a choice to beleive so, and you will tell everyone that it is evident.
@brchful 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?
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 Yes it may very well be that our survive depends on a plan and a guiding hand inspired by conscious will. Is it not rather the case that we should freely understand the processes and phenomena through science in order to best hedge our bets and be our own best guides. Taking any area and assigning it to god's realm would be like letting go of the steering wheel and hoping god brings you home. Boiled down to it, evolution has incredible explanatory power.
@Ixions42 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
if they accepted evolution as true, then they believe that God would punish them,
____
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
@1tabligh Of course questions are being asked about evolution. There are questions being asked about every branch of science. Asking questions is what science is all about. That's how science progresses. questions asked, new evidence is forthcoming, new knowledge is gained.
Religion is the practice of not asking questions. New evidence is ignored if it contradicts old "Knowledge". Everybody continues with the old "knowledge", no matter how dicredited it is. After all, god might punish them.
@1tabligh 1. why are you, anno 2011, concerned with what some dude said about evolution in the late 1800s? Doesn't it make more sense to look at the scientific knowledge of... 2011?
2. Mutation is always the cause of change. Organ or otherwise. There is no "will" to adapt. There is only mutation and natural selection. Natural selection itself is broken down in a lot of sub-mechanisms (sexual selection etc). But that's the bottom line.
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
@1tabligh "may culminate in death and extinction" Then the orgnanism wouldn't reproduce and thus not pass on its genes. Mutations are never the cause of extinction. There are always other factors at work. Mostly natural disasters and climate change. Or being outcompeted by rival species.
"Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection " It's exactly the same. The only difference is that in artificial selection, it's WE who decide which individuals get to reproduce.
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.
@1tabligh Questioning is welcomed by Science. There is more solid, verifiable evidence and proof for Evolution that for any other branch of science, yet it is constantly under attack by superstition and religion.
Evolution has had more questions asked about it that any other branch of science, because of the religious attacks on it and has always come out vindicated.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
@1tabligh Quote: "Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism;"
Your claims of religion are nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unprovable theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on superstitionand delusion.
It is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of god. It is up to religion job to prove it. Cont'd.
@Darwinsman Religion can't prove it, that's the whole point. But in the presence of our knowledge of history, how it exposes errors in the bible texts, combined with internal contradictions, psychology and philosophy, the belief in the surrounding tales of the bible are highly implausible. People employing common sense take account of that.
The so called backups of religion, such as moral standards are present in any human to begin with and hence cannot be attributed to religion, no monopoly.
@1tabligh "Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God " Nobody claims that. The only thing science has shown in context of evolution is that a god is not necessary, nore does anything we observe in nature suggest that any gods had anything to do with it. Does that mean they don't exist? No. It does mean that they didn't do anything to diversify life. There are natural processes in place that do that.
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.
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.
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 Quote: "within it, ....to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation."
it is logical and common sense to conclude firmly and forcibly that any claims of any being who reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination, speculation, delusion and superstition.
@Darwinsman 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 "All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe"
I love how you first basicly asserted that humans are incapable of gathering knowledge and then hint that we don't need to try either, since we have "allah".
And the fact that you used a computer, an internet connection, electricity from a nuclear plant, thousands of miles of cable, nuclear powered data centers, etc to share that outragous claim with is just makes it even funnier.
@Andy32268 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?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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?
sunt florin am 15 ani si vin cu o mare rugaminte la dvs poate ne veti ajuta si pe noi.noi nu avem pt ca lucreaza doar mama la matura pe strada pt500 de lei, dar acum numai lucreaza pt ca a calzat stramb la munca, si acum are piciorul in ghips. tata nu lucreaza pentru ca are si el doua tije la picior, numai are somaj, si traim toti 3 intr-o camera la beci in speranta ca ne veti ajuta cu ce puteti va las numarul meu de telefon 0731806200 si un nr de cont. va multumesc RO38RZBR0000060013534313lei.
I dont think there was a first living cell, there were probably thousands or millions of first living cells. It's unlikely that the process of abiogenesis restricted to a single protocell, in a sea of primordial soup and favorable conditions.
@sirdelrio Although there are still scientific debates about what actually happened on the early Earth, Abiogenesis, as defined as life coming from non-life, has been achieved. I quote Eckard Wimmer's group who synththesyzed an RNA virus, the recent work of Craig Ventor who created Mycoplasma laboratorium from non-living components, and , of course, the wonderful pioneering work of Dr. Frankinstein.
So freaking scary that so many people are idiots. It is scary that these teachers are teaching the wrong things. They should have thier liscenses revoked to teach. It's horrific. That why people I know who are bible thumpers are so freaking stupid.
8:28 Wow, can't see what is so appealing about being a product of 100's of generations incest dating back to the original dirt man having sex with himself but whatever lady.
@saulboyjt why is nothing possible without God? what evidence do you have he is the cause of reality? i say a giant ball of spagetti is the cause of reality, without that ball of spagetti nothing is possible
@saulboyjt It's honestly difficult for me to sleep at night knowing that there are people like you in this world who are so spectacularly foolish sounding. You state "Without God nothing is possible, he is the cause of reality" I say, "how do you know, did he tell you himself?" You will reply "the bible says so" Then I reply, "how do you know the bible is truth?" And then you have nowhere else to turn other than against your own (presumable) upbringing.
@bellyzbad I don't have the slightest clue what you meant by that. But seeing as how only 12 year olds use the term "fucktard", I am obligated not to take you seriously.
Well, what about Europe? I saw plenty and talked to plenty of religious people in Europe. I'm not, but I'm merely stating that Europe and America did not seem that different to me regarding religion. I stayed with a family in Germany that carried Bibles to church (never figured out what that was about).
When I watch things like this I'm almost ashamed to be from the American South. I live in Texas and I can assure you the educational system is not much better here. At least we have the Atheist Experience from Austin bringing some reason into the discussion.
YOUR ALL BLIND TO THE FACTS. GOD JUST SNAPPED HIS FINGERS AND CREATED MAN...YA'LL NEED TO GET OUT YOUR BUBBLE AND FACE REALITY SCIENCE IS TRUTH. RELIGION ISN'T. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DIRESPECTFUL BY NO MEANS BUT IT'S CRAZY HOW PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THE SIMILARITIES OF MAN AND APES. TELL ME WHY WE SHARE 98.7 OF THE SAME "DNA" WITH APES??? ANYWAY I'M NOT GOING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE CAUSE IT'S A DEAD END ARGUMENT WITH ALL YOU RELIGIOUS FANATICS. RESPECT TO MR.DAWKINS FOR TRYING TO MAKE BELIEVERS OF THIS..
@newcoyote I really don't know where your going with that comment, so I really got no answer for your comment...If your referring to the capital letters it was done on purpose. It was for me to get the attention of all stubborn narrow minded people who were commenting . Anyway if it wasn't for that then you got me. take it easy..
@RELZNYC Yes. The all caps. Do you really think you are making a compelling argument by doing what is almost universally regarded as the doings of an internet caveman? Please don't make us who care about science, reason and logic look like a bunch of hollering trolls. You take it easy. It is not about who can yell the loudest. Do you see Prof. Dawkins acting like that? It's embarrassing.
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 ok god created all... Cmon all you guys have are beliefs. I will take data over beliefs any day of the week. Religion is man made and so is the bible. Like I said it's a dead end argument until we can prove otherwise. Evolution is truth the bible isn't. Is god human? What is he? There's documentation on Jesus but not god? Why is that? The list goes on an on. Like I said Dead end argument...
@RELZNYC Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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?
excellent series. where religion has stopped dead in its tracks in the search for truth science has an awesome journey that has just barely begun. I want the human race to take that journey into understanding. let the anti science crowd stagnate in their small world.
You'd prefer to believe in adam and eve?? Is that the bottom line??
America is fucked.
N64isgreat 1 month ago
The underlying reason for people believing in God is that they want to live for ever. The only people who tell them they can live for ever also tell them that they must believe in God first.
ritchloui 1 month ago
there should be a warning when a load sound is used at the start of videos :) :)
edward6000 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
This is why the US is falling behind everyone.
dewonderkind 2 months ago
deepak u suck!
QuarterHater9 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
WTF kind of weeds these people smoke?
wanyudo 2 months ago
Answers to the mysteries of the universe should not take away from the "Awe" that one has in god, and feel cheated that there isn't some divine magic. It should deepen the sense of wonder and respect for something to intricate in design.
Koorime18 3 months ago
The argument of "well since science doesn't know how to answer x, y and z, then that proves that there is a divine creator" When in fact, it does not. It is simply unknown, and while science is humble to say "we don't know" it never concedes to "we will never know" and yet religious individuals will berate those who try to understand the universe as if it's trying to defy god in trying to find truth. It should be that trying to find answers is understanding god.
Koorime18 3 months ago 2
God bless Richard Dawkins :D
CokeSupply 3 months ago
Comment removed
ThorSledgHammer 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@CokeSupply God bless Quantum Physics....
ThorSledgHammer 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd My sentiments exactly!
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd And i second that emotion!
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpencerBenedict2nd Ditto!
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
i love after "and yet" it starts playing that music, the people here in the bible belt are stupid but damn they got some groovy music
wearestarstuffsagan 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
Somebody put a dunce's cap on Gov. James' head.
erracht 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey guys learn how to get a hot girlfriend in a week or less. Go to the link in the brackets..
(sn.im / 281nmh)
Remove the space before and after the slash. Quit saying you are ugly. Haven't you seen scores of guys that aren't good looking who have super hot girl friends?
alexmerc256 6 months ago
in my baghdad too, nonsense is official..
atheer2002 6 months ago
Is this from the 80's? The guy hasn't aged at all.
eyebal 6 months ago
@eyebal It's from 1996 :D, yes, he ages gracefully ;D
freiheitsalv 6 months ago
I dont wanna be rude or anything but Im from Sweden and none ...NONE..of our teachers sound this stupid! Sweden have the highest procentage of atheists in the world and we just teach plain evolution. And any teacher throwing bibles around saying Adam and Eve in biology class would get fired faster then a monkey stealing a banana.
funnystarchild 6 months ago
@funnystarchild There are more Christians in the US than atheists but what you wrote is true here is the US too. You can't even say "Merry Christmas" on any government owned property without getting sued. All Christmas commercials are now "Holiday" commercials. Atheists claim WE are interfering on THEIR rights. What a joke. BTW, our schools don't teach much science. They're too busy teaching about gay history or latino history or black history. No wonder our kids are idiots.
YesYou123333 6 months ago
Alabama.... officially retarded!
CarajilloDulce 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins has come to chew bubble gum and kick creationist ass, and he's all out of bubble gum.
DejectedPanda 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins has the right kind of faith.
dlbattle100 6 months ago
If he had pushed that ball just a little, the outcome would've been much more fun to watch ; )
Stektanudlar 6 months ago
"Thank God" I'm not from Alabama...
jswerdel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL I totally accept that you are entitled to them as well. The difference is that my "beliefs" (or lack of the them) are based on verifiable evidence, whereas yours, if you really are a christian, are based on pure blind fath and a total rejection of evidence.
Darwinsman 6 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL No it doesn't hurt, because I realise that nobody is perfect. Christians may claim not to be perfect but they certainly don't act it, at least, not on You-tube.
As for "Christ". I assume you mean Jesus. There is not even any evidence of his existence. "Christ" is a Greek title, meaning anointed one, not a name, which has been used, in one form or another, for thousands of years. Even the High priests were accorded the title. There were also 4 high priests called Jesus.
Darwinsman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
Fob James took a few naps during biology class. And now we can't get national science standards in the US because the apes in the south have yet to evolve. Sorry commentary in the 21st century-a national disgrace.
dwolfcoach 7 months ago
I understood the basic concept of evolution when I was 7. How some adults can't grasp it is beyond me.
PhrygianBlack 7 months ago
@PhrygianBlack Quote: "I understood the basic concept of evolution when I was 7. How some adults can't grasp it is beyond me."
Because they dare not allow their minds to understand it. They are so fearful of life and death, if they accepted evolution as true, then they believe that God would punish them, with eternal damnation in Hell.
For a lot of Christians their belief is a security blanket for the morally fearful who cannot handle the realities of life.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
@Darwinsman 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 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings? "
The short answer is YES.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
They are so fearful of life and death, if they accepted evolution as true, then they believe that God would punish them, with eternal damnation in Hell.
____
Those who deny God insist on the conclusion that God is the product of human thought. For example, Some deluded and duped Atheists and the English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, regards the fear of natural forces to have been the origin of religion. ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
"In my opinion, religion is above all founded on fear: fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of defeat, fear of the mysterious and the hidden. In addition, as already remarked, a sentiment comes into being enabling everyone to imagine that he has a supporter in all his problems and struggles.'
This is merely a claim, unsupported by any evidence.
Nonetheless, we can respond that even if we accept the original and fundamental motive for man's belief in a creator to have been fear, ....
1tabligh 7 months ago
this in no way proves that the existence of God is a mere fancy without reality.
If fear motivated man to seek a refuge and if in the course of that search he discovered a certain reality (God), is there any objection to be made?
If fear is the cause for the discovery of a certain thing, can we say that that thing is imaginary and unreal because it was fear that prompted man to seek it out? ....
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "can we say that that thing is imaginary and unreal because it was fear that prompted man to seek it out?"
No. But once we realise that the "finding" of this god-figure is actually all about superstition and blind faith, then we can conclude that it's imaginary.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
It would surely be illogical to maintain, for example, that the science of medicine has no reality because man has sought and discovered it out of fear, fear of disease and death?
The truth of the matter is that the science of medicine is a reality, irrespective of whether the original motive of man in discovering it was fear of disease and death or some other factor.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "It would surely be illogical to maintain, for example, that the science of medicine has no reality"
Indeed. But not for the reason you give. The ACTUAL reason is because the science of medicine is testable, verifiable, falsifiable. It has real (testable) results in the real world.
And that is why it is accepted.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
@ScientificBob With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh I have no idea what your point is.
You speak words, but all I hear is gibberish.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob [In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh I think it's hilarious how that entire post is a word for word copy-paste from the page muslimphilosophy(dot)com/op/op-c8(dot)htm
And I still have no idea what you are talking about nore what you are replying to.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob 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!
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh "Dodging ALL the questions " I have no issue with answering any question you wish to throw at me. But I need to know what you are talking about first. What are you replying to? And what is your point?
"Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed*" Theism looks at the world with 2 eyes closed, their ears shut and their brains in hibernation mode. I prefer the "one eye open" option then.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh This post is AGAIN a WORD FOR WORD copy paste of the site muslimphilosophy(dot)com/op/op-c8(dot)htm.
Do you have any thoughts of your own or...?
And I still have no idea what you are talking about nore what you are replying to.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh Again a word for word copy paste, which is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about. Aren't you ashamed?
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "copy paste"!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh I'm ending this exchange of posts. All you do is copy entire sentences from the same page over and over again. I ask you to explain what the fuck you are talking about and what you are replying to, and you respond with more copy-pasted bullocks.
If you are unable to form a sentence by yourself, you shouldn't try to communicate.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
Further, would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells?
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh I'ld copy paste even more.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the materialists.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh "Answer the questions!" I will once you are able to explain what the hell you are talking about without copy-pasting every sentence you write down.
ScientificBob 5 months ago
@ScientificBob If self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present, whether or not water is necessary; for necessity in the natural sense is merely the necessity produced by the laws and decrees of nature.
1tabligh 5 months ago
What then made those laws and decrees different?
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!
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
What's wrong with saying I don't know? In fact, it's the grown-up thing to do.
Only I child would just make stuff up.
DasKrabbe 5 months ago
@DasKrabbe Then 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 5 months ago
@1tabligh
Did you just google 'scientific sounding stuff' and then just copy 'n' paste it into your comment? Honestly, you're really not making any sense, whatsoever.
DasKrabbe 5 months ago
@DasKrabbe Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
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?
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
I have never said the belief that a God created the universe is a contradiction. I'll put it this way:
For the sake of argument let's assume there are two possibilities.
1. The universe came out of nothing.
2. An all powerful God came out of nothing and then created the universe.
Any reasonable person would agree nr. 1 is a simpler explanation and by occam's razor is the one we should go by.
DasKrabbe 5 months ago
@DasKrabbe 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?
1tabligh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
Something that has "millions of attributes and characteristics" is equivalent to a "purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator"?
Give me a proof of that.
DasKrabbe 5 months ago
@1tabligh It's not believed that. You're making that assumption that the universe requires purpose and wisdom by a creator. The classical view is that it's a byproduct of an early event. Maybe a lucky 1 in a trillion event. The chances of life ever occurring through a scientifically discerned method approaches 1 when contrasted with the opportunities it's had in the history of all time. The same principle may be true for the universe.
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
@TheBreadfan 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 4 months ago
What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh You don't understand evolution? This is stuff every realistic scientist acknowledges as a product of nature. I'm not keen on explaining the ins and outs, The research is your responsibility to be honest if you want to argue a case for god. Your assumptions about a plan and design boggles my mind when equivalent physical evidence suggests to the contrary. There is literally no cause for you to look to the metaphysical for answers.
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
@TheBreadfan Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Absolutely not. Physics arranges our universe, perceived 'order' is a byproduct, however it is increasingly becoming more and more disordered through entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe and all matter does have an ultimate destination and that is a heat death.
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
@TheBreadfan Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh You're totally poeing me aren't you. The universe needed no intelligence or guidance to become what we see today, I believe I already made that point. You're making the wild assumption that it does, despite zero evidence of divine intervention at any level. Logic requires keen observation and understanding of the properties, you however are using the antithesis of logic, no understanding of behavior but self attribution of a property that you neither understand or explains what we see.
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
@TheBreadfan Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh I've heard someone ask me exactly this before. It's such an unusually worded question. I'd just like to say that matter does not govern behavior, behavior is governed by the laws of nature, before I ask you to please reword yourself.
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
@TheBreadfan Then 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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh I'm not deluding myself to believe how the elements created themselves, this is easily reproducible behavior. The natural laws came first, there's also some evidence that they aren't all universal, but relative and variable.
I just wonder how you can delude yourself to think that science needs people like you to make up an explanation and that saying it was 'magic' adequately plugs the gaps (which aren't actually as significant as you believe, which to me is very telling).
TheBreadfan 4 months ago
@1tabligh -- Or is it that they are more likely to believe that because their mentors, and the rest of the people in their professional community do not allow for the possibility of any belief otherwise? I think that the point of the Ben Stein movie was that anyone who is willing to entertain religious beliefs is ostracized in this community?
brchful 4 months ago
@brchful Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh -- they don't really know all that much....
brchful 4 months ago
@1tabligh -- they don't really know that much....
brchful 4 months ago
@brchful 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?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh -- If you believe that nature arose from itself that is called pantheism, and much of the earlier religious traditions hold this view. But this is not scientific, and if I’m to understand most of the atheists arguments against religion it is that they are not scientific.
As to how that can be believed, there are many things in modern physics that seem incredible, and we do not understand anything well enough to be so certain.
brchful 4 months ago
@brchful Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh -- Are we debating? I don't understand your question.
brchful 4 months ago
@brchful In other words - 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 4 months ago
@1tabligh -- It is not necessarily implicit, no. If you're Richard Dawkins you've made a choice to beleive so, and you will tell everyone that it is evident.
brchful 4 months ago
@brchful 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 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
@1tabligh Yes it may very well be that our survive depends on a plan and a guiding hand inspired by conscious will. Is it not rather the case that we should freely understand the processes and phenomena through science in order to best hedge our bets and be our own best guides. Taking any area and assigning it to god's realm would be like letting go of the steering wheel and hoping god brings you home. Boiled down to it, evolution has incredible explanatory power.
Ixions42 4 months ago
@Ixions42 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 4 months ago
if they accepted evolution as true, then they believe that God would punish them,
____
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Of course questions are being asked about evolution. There are questions being asked about every branch of science. Asking questions is what science is all about. That's how science progresses. questions asked, new evidence is forthcoming, new knowledge is gained.
Religion is the practice of not asking questions. New evidence is ignored if it contradicts old "Knowledge". Everybody continues with the old "knowledge", no matter how dicredited it is. After all, god might punish them.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
@1tabligh 1. why are you, anno 2011, concerned with what some dude said about evolution in the late 1800s? Doesn't it make more sense to look at the scientific knowledge of... 2011?
2. Mutation is always the cause of change. Organ or otherwise. There is no "will" to adapt. There is only mutation and natural selection. Natural selection itself is broken down in a lot of sub-mechanisms (sexual selection etc). But that's the bottom line.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "may culminate in death and extinction" Then the orgnanism wouldn't reproduce and thus not pass on its genes. Mutations are never the cause of extinction. There are always other factors at work. Mostly natural disasters and climate change. Or being outcompeted by rival species.
"Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection " It's exactly the same. The only difference is that in artificial selection, it's WE who decide which individuals get to reproduce.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So much science for the pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Answer all 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!
1tabligh 7 months ago
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.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Questioning is welcomed by Science. There is more solid, verifiable evidence and proof for Evolution that for any other branch of science, yet it is constantly under attack by superstition and religion.
Evolution has had more questions asked about it that any other branch of science, because of the religious attacks on it and has always come out vindicated.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
@Darwinsman The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Quote: "Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism;"
Your claims of religion are nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unprovable theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on superstitionand delusion.
It is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of god. It is up to religion job to prove it. Cont'd.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
@Darwinsman Religion can't prove it, that's the whole point. But in the presence of our knowledge of history, how it exposes errors in the bible texts, combined with internal contradictions, psychology and philosophy, the belief in the surrounding tales of the bible are highly implausible. People employing common sense take account of that.
The so called backups of religion, such as moral standards are present in any human to begin with and hence cannot be attributed to religion, no monopoly.
avdmeers 7 months ago
@avdmeers I couldn't have said it better, but the religious still can't or daren't admit it.
If they did it, they would have to question their whole existence and that terrifies them.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
@Darwinsman Ah, I seem to have relied to the wrong recipient, my bad.
avdmeers 7 months ago
@avdmeers we all do it at one time or another. Nobody's perfect, except the Christians of course. :D
Darwinsman 7 months ago
@1tabligh "Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God " Nobody claims that. The only thing science has shown in context of evolution is that a god is not necessary, nore does anything we observe in nature suggest that any gods had anything to do with it. Does that mean they don't exist? No. It does mean that they didn't do anything to diversify life. There are natural processes in place that do that.
"unproven theories" Such as?
ScientificBob 6 months ago
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.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
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 7 months ago
@1tabligh Quote: "within it, ....to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation."
it is logical and common sense to conclude firmly and forcibly that any claims of any being who reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination, speculation, delusion and superstition.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwinsman 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 7 months ago
@1tabligh "All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe"
I love how you first basicly asserted that humans are incapable of gathering knowledge and then hint that we don't need to try either, since we have "allah".
And the fact that you used a computer, an internet connection, electricity from a nuclear plant, thousands of miles of cable, nuclear powered data centers, etc to share that outragous claim with is just makes it even funnier.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
Thank God (pun intended) that I'm an atheist living in the north of the US.
Andy32268 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andy32268 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 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sunt florin am 15 ani si vin cu o mare rugaminte la dvs poate ne veti ajuta si pe noi.noi nu avem pt ca lucreaza doar mama la matura pe strada pt500 de lei, dar acum numai lucreaza pt ca a calzat stramb la munca, si acum are piciorul in ghips. tata nu lucreaza pentru ca are si el doua tije la picior, numai are somaj, si traim toti 3 intr-o camera la beci in speranta ca ne veti ajuta cu ce puteti va las numarul meu de telefon 0731806200 si un nr de cont. va multumesc RO38RZBR0000060013534313lei.
florin2748 8 months ago
im always so embarrased whenever academics talk about the south. i live in the bible belt, and yes, people are dumber than in the video.
MrKGatl 8 months ago 27
@MrKGatl i also live in the bible belt and yes, people here are generally bordering on mental retardation
wearestarstuffsagan 4 months ago
I dont think there was a first living cell, there were probably thousands or millions of first living cells. It's unlikely that the process of abiogenesis restricted to a single protocell, in a sea of primordial soup and favorable conditions.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
@sirdelrio Although there are still scientific debates about what actually happened on the early Earth, Abiogenesis, as defined as life coming from non-life, has been achieved. I quote Eckard Wimmer's group who synththesyzed an RNA virus, the recent work of Craig Ventor who created Mycoplasma laboratorium from non-living components, and , of course, the wonderful pioneering work of Dr. Frankinstein.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@sirdelrio I totally agree with you, but one cell that managed to survive and replicate is all it would have needed.
Darwinsman 7 months ago
So freaking scary that so many people are idiots. It is scary that these teachers are teaching the wrong things. They should have thier liscenses revoked to teach. It's horrific. That why people I know who are bible thumpers are so freaking stupid.
MrJIMMY3009 9 months ago
So freaking scary that so many people are idiots.
MrJIMMY3009 9 months ago
Science if you dont like America you can GIIIRRRT OUT....
dancingwithcalvin 9 months ago
8:28 Wow, can't see what is so appealing about being a product of 100's of generations incest dating back to the original dirt man having sex with himself but whatever lady.
RandomSnot 9 months ago
I mean, every time we turn on a car engine or get on a plane we have much higher chances of dying than the ball hitting our faces...
Voiderify 9 months ago
"A human couldn't have come from a single cell!!!11"
Women do it in nine months...
viiScorp 9 months ago
I kind of want to set fire to the former confederate states.
RoderichEdelstein727 10 months ago
Hallelujah! wat a bastard!
The Alabama insert??? haha!
jobya 10 months ago
Without God nothing is possible, he is the cause of reality.
Dawkings is a liar and a deceit, too bad that some people fall for his diatribes.
saulboyjt 10 months ago
@saulboyjt too bad you've been so deluded
TiteProducts 10 months ago
@saulboyjt why is nothing possible without God? what evidence do you have he is the cause of reality? i say a giant ball of spagetti is the cause of reality, without that ball of spagetti nothing is possible
faruqi 9 months ago 16
@faruqi Now that's just being sil- oh wait.
Triipticz 6 months ago
@faruqi His evidence is probably the many of his silly stories on his silly book.
petion2010 6 months ago
@saulboyjt It's honestly difficult for me to sleep at night knowing that there are people like you in this world who are so spectacularly foolish sounding. You state "Without God nothing is possible, he is the cause of reality" I say, "how do you know, did he tell you himself?" You will reply "the bible says so" Then I reply, "how do you know the bible is truth?" And then you have nowhere else to turn other than against your own (presumable) upbringing.
rpsmith014 9 months ago
@saulboyjt Also, "Dawkins is a liar and a deceit" give me a fucking break. p.s.- wonderful piano playing on your channel by the way.
rpsmith014 9 months ago
@rpsmith014 no he is not a liar your justs fucktard
bellyzbad 9 months ago in playlist ID vs Evolution and Atheism
@bellyzbad I don't have the slightest clue what you meant by that. But seeing as how only 12 year olds use the term "fucktard", I am obligated not to take you seriously.
rpsmith014 9 months ago
@rpsmith014 who ever you are. You're a certified idiot! Science doesn't lie. Shove your bible up your ass you fuck stick.
MrJIMMY3009 9 months ago
@MrJIMMY3009 I believe your comment was supposed to be directed to "saulboyjt".
rpsmith014 9 months ago
Well, what about Europe? I saw plenty and talked to plenty of religious people in Europe. I'm not, but I'm merely stating that Europe and America did not seem that different to me regarding religion. I stayed with a family in Germany that carried Bibles to church (never figured out what that was about).
drewskione 10 months ago
When I watch things like this I'm almost ashamed to be from the American South. I live in Texas and I can assure you the educational system is not much better here. At least we have the Atheist Experience from Austin bringing some reason into the discussion.
cpqarray 10 months ago
any creationist is a fool, and an ignorant fool at that. end of story.
JBeezie428 11 months ago
Since when did politicians know ANYTHING about science?
prospectoroftruth 11 months ago
You're fairly moronic if capital letters bother you.
AvatarOfAvatar 11 months ago
@AvatarOfAvatar , I just wanted to say that was a great comment. I laughed for a while on that 1. Thanx again.
RELZNYC 11 months ago
My grandma is from Alabama, it is full of ignorant retards.
Anastasius37 11 months ago
YOUR ALL BLIND TO THE FACTS. GOD JUST SNAPPED HIS FINGERS AND CREATED MAN...YA'LL NEED TO GET OUT YOUR BUBBLE AND FACE REALITY SCIENCE IS TRUTH. RELIGION ISN'T. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DIRESPECTFUL BY NO MEANS BUT IT'S CRAZY HOW PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THE SIMILARITIES OF MAN AND APES. TELL ME WHY WE SHARE 98.7 OF THE SAME "DNA" WITH APES??? ANYWAY I'M NOT GOING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE CAUSE IT'S A DEAD END ARGUMENT WITH ALL YOU RELIGIOUS FANATICS. RESPECT TO MR.DAWKINS FOR TRYING TO MAKE BELIEVERS OF THIS..
RELZNYC 1 year ago
@RELZNYC Get some compressed air and fix your key board would ja?
newcoyote 1 year ago
@newcoyote I really don't know where your going with that comment, so I really got no answer for your comment...If your referring to the capital letters it was done on purpose. It was for me to get the attention of all stubborn narrow minded people who were commenting . Anyway if it wasn't for that then you got me. take it easy..
RELZNYC 1 year ago
@RELZNYC Yes. The all caps. Do you really think you are making a compelling argument by doing what is almost universally regarded as the doings of an internet caveman? Please don't make us who care about science, reason and logic look like a bunch of hollering trolls. You take it easy. It is not about who can yell the loudest. Do you see Prof. Dawkins acting like that? It's embarrassing.
newcoyote 1 year ago
@newcoyote take it easy pal, I'm on your side. No need for the insults towards me. Good day....
RELZNYC 1 year ago
@RELZNYC
The atheist Delusion!
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 11 months ago
@1tabligh ok god created all... Cmon all you guys have are beliefs. I will take data over beliefs any day of the week. Religion is man made and so is the bible. Like I said it's a dead end argument until we can prove otherwise. Evolution is truth the bible isn't. Is god human? What is he? There's documentation on Jesus but not god? Why is that? The list goes on an on. Like I said Dead end argument...
RELZNYC 11 months ago
@RELZNYC 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 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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 11 months ago
excellent series. where religion has stopped dead in its tracks in the search for truth science has an awesome journey that has just barely begun. I want the human race to take that journey into understanding. let the anti science crowd stagnate in their small world.
lunhil12 1 year ago
Not surprising. Since the first settlers happened to be Puritans we started off lagging behind and have been playing catch up ever since.
lunhil12 1 year ago