I don't really take sides on this one, & I love you Dawkins, but if feeling pain has anything to do with when it's okay to kill something, I'm sure there are many ways to murder a full-grown adult in his sleep. I don't find that to be particularly moral.
@bxjam85 Really? I can't think of one of humanity's current problems that can't be cures with science and reason. Can you? And, may I hear it, so we can talk about whether it's curable?
@Pomme843 Wow. You scientific evangelists sound just as fideistic as fedeists. Morality cannot reduce to science. That is a horrible misconception of morality. Science can only describe what is, but not what ought to be. Ethics should inform science and vice-versa but, when it comes to describing what ought to be, morality is ultimately informed by sentiments and sentiments vary depending on culture, history and circumstance.
@bxjam85 Okay, when you say "cure problems", I assume you're not talking about moral questions. Of course science cannot give us moral precedents. You're strawman-ing me here.
My point is that if you start out with a moral notion, like "happiness is desirable", then you can solve most "descriptive problems", and create a society, a world, even, that maximizes happiness. Sentiments, and happiness, are the result of electrical impulses in brains. These can be used to make moral systems universal.
@Pomme843 Electrical impulses in the brain cannot be used to make moral systems universal or objective. Electrical impulses/sentiments vary between individuals and most especially cultures. You will never be able to make moral systems universal between human cultures and any attempt to do so is likely to result in error. Reducing morality and life itself to nothing but "happiness" is another mistake that the West faithfully adheres to today.
I don't think it's impossible to make everyone adhere to the same moral system. Differences in individual brain can be fair easily overcome with the sufficient technological level, through manipulation of each brain manually, genetical modifications, etc. Across cultures? Well, I think that more and more people will be acclimated to some utilitarian idea, and perhaps come to like the idea of augmented happiness through science.
@Pomme843 Just reading this utopian nonsense is painful. Yes, differences in every individual human brain can be overcome if we make every human being into the Borg from Star Trek, but I would rather die before living in such a world. Technophilia is a dirty bitch and a stubborn dick. Unfortunately, just like a Christian who's waiting for the rapture and the kingdom of God, you will never live to see the day that "heaven" is created on earth.
@bxjam85 That's but a bunch of unsubstanciated claims. Furthermore, death is also completely overcomable (if that's a word), through technology. Cryonics, nanotech, gene manipulation, the merger of brains and manifactured machines.
There's no need to make a Borg-like society, although that would be a possibility. An individual brain can be manipulated individually, with the right technology.
I don't claim that any of this will happen, nor that I will take part in it. I'm saying it's possible.
@bxjam85 Faith though is a belief without evidence, and we can easily investigate the things that science and reason have done for us, without reason we wouldnt have been allowed to have this discussion and without science we wouldnt be having it online either
1. Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions and ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
@WILLTHEWGMAN It's a matter of belief. Richard Dawkins strongly believes there is no god, nor God himself. He believes Evolution is true. These are beliefs. Individual beliefs. Where as religion itself is objective beliefs in a group of people, a nation, or even the entire Human race.
What you are seeing in this video, is Propaganda. It is information about a specifically chosen topic, designated to change your view, opinion, or reaction. That is unless you actually think during the process....
The truth of the matter is that religious beliefs are highly subjective rather than objective. The scientific method is built on objectivity.
An objective statement is informed only by direct observation of evidence without any bias toward a particular conclusion at the outset of said observation. Religion assumes a deity or force prior to the observations, and its claims aren't falsifiable.
Scientific inquiry is based on the falsifiable hypothesis and tangible evidence.
As for whether or not accepting evolution as a fact based upon previous observations qualifies as a belief, I would posit to you that one who argues that evolution is a scientific fact means that it is a strongly supported model.
In other words, they are saying that after extensive testing of the mechanisms and processes which may or may not support the hypothesis that species change over time, the verdict thus far is that they in fact do change. It's a model, not a belief.
@SocialistCatgirl The definition of "Belief" is as follows: "refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof.";
As none of us can nor will hold absolute truth, all hypothesis, and, or, theories, require belief.
Evolution is an idea, that is designed thus designated to explaining what has yet been unexplained in the fields of Biology, and Nature itself. Marko Rodin holds a theory that the world of Physics, functions
Let me re-type the definition of belief, putting the part you're failing to pay attention to in all caps.
"Refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right WITHOUT POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE OR PROOF."
Remember that in order for a hypothesis to be accepted, sufficient evidence has to be gathered. That would be the proof that the definition of "belief" is referring to. Your definition only works if hypotheses are accepted w/o evidence.
Evolutionary theory is an explanation of phenomena which are regularly observed in biological study. Yes, so what? It still has to fit the evidence, so it still requires proof. That's how hypothesis testing works, you have to check to see if the model proposed fits the observations.
Evolutionary theory currently fits all the evidence gathered in all fields of Biology. Its continued acceptance is contingent upon continued evidence. Check the definition of belief again.
@SocialistCatgirl You hold the answer in your hands, yet you blindly trample on it.
If i told you that God was behind everything, as i truly believe, you would likely find that idea, thus perception, ludicrous. However. If i proposed that Evolution is the basis for which things can evolve, you would likely propose that as a generally good viewpoint, as you by "default" hold this viewpoint.
Now. If this is not obvious enough for you. Then let me elaborate my opinion further -
It's actually fairly straightforward. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths, only facts and evidence. In reality, scientific claims are by virtue of their very nature NEVER absolute truths because they must always be falsifiable.
The only element you're claiming to be a belief at this point is the belief that humans are capable of understanding and interpreting the evidence they gather, or that the evidence is evidence at all. What's the alternative to evidence and data?
And let's not get hasty on making statements about my attitude toward theology. You don't have a monopoly on Christianity, pal. If you catch my drift.
You do not understand how simple it is to eliminate the Silly questions you raised yourself. You can even use it as an counter-argument. Everyone believes, and it is what makes learning possible. You'll have to deal with it. Any Theist would use his or her rationality to establish the basis for a belief in the Almighty Lord.
We've seen evidence of him. What more is there to ask of him? Open your Heart my friend, and you will see the obvious that you are denying.
Wait a minute. It seems as though you're trying to convert me to Christianity. Hon, you're thoroughly confused about me. I'm already a Christian, and I already believe in God. I just happen to also understand the principles of scientific inquiry.
Why is it so important to claim that evolutionary theory is a belief instead of an evidence-driven explanation of observable phenomena? Why kick and scream so much about this?
@SocialistCatgirl You are violating one of the Commandments, thus proving that logically you cannot and will not be a Christian.
Do you think Men can hold absolute truth, if so. When some middle Easterners establish from reason and Logic that Westerners are Immoral, Idiotic, and Brainwashed, are these beliefs, or facts?
How do you rationalize one claim over another, and make up which is to be the one biased of truth, contrary to biased on subjective beliefs?
@SocialistCatgirl Thus - If so i claimed that you were not a Christian, as such i have already done, using my Logic, are you to factualize that such truths are wrong, because you simply: "know yourself better";.
And. How is one cometh to know you, without being wrong? How can one establish a truth based on your behavior, without being wrong?
Is your opinion not Subjective? Do you hold Objective truths from your mere opinions?
As far as demonstrating that I'm not a Christian, you only did about a quarter of the job. You have to say WHICH commandment I'm violating and demonstrate concretely that I AM in fact violating it (that's another quarter of the job), then the other half is that I have to continue violating the commandment in spite of being shown clearly that I am in violation.
And I'm pretty sure I've told you a billion times now that evidence has to inform any scientific claim.
@SocialistCatgirl If you break one of them 10 Commandments while aware, then you are NOT a Christian. What goes for your redemption. I do not think the Almighty Lord gives us opportunity, then to redeem you on the basis of your "acceptance" of the God himself. However. I wouldn't know the answer, as i hold nothing else than a Human connection to the Lord.
However. If you think the Christian faith EVER mentions that redemption is for all, then you are VERY wrong. This is false teaching!
First of all, I never implied that I did not believe in God. I only stated that belief in God does not follow scientific criteria and therefore is a non-scientific thing. I may have made the IMPLICATURE that I was an Atheist, but I never made the implication (and yes, there is a very big difference).
Secondly, the commandment is that I may not worship false idols. As I do not worship any idols whatsoever, nor do I adhere to evolutionary theory in a religious manner, you fail.
There are three schools of thought in Christianity with regard to the issue of salvation: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism. The first states that those who will attain salvation are predestined to do so, and those who attain damnation are also predestined to do so, therefore Christ's sacrifice was only for the elect. The other two state that salvation is available to all, and that they only need to take it willingly. The last one states that everyone eventually will.
So the question in my mind is whether your are a Calvinist (you sound like one) or an Arminian. I know for SURE you're not a Universalist, and I've serious doubts that you're an Arminian.
You're also questioning one of the three generally accepted qualities of God, specifically omnibenevolence. All but Calvinist schools of Christianity accept this as a quality of God, so again I suspect you to be a Calvinist.
I'm not so easy to beat in a theological debate after all, eh?
@SocialistCatgirl Your first violation was to imply you did not believe in the existence of the Lord. Your second violation: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." This is of course not a completely correct translation of the Hebrew texts. But it is close enough, as Hebrew has words English does not. It states that you may not idolize anything, nor may your picture anything.
@SocialistCatgirl Everything WE think and know, as a whole, is A belief in the world-view, that we CAN hold absolute truth. HOWEVER -
Humans CANNOT hold absolute truth, logically. We PERCEIVE of an absolute reality, according to our reason and Logic. We SEE, thus we ACKNOWLEDGE what we see.
When Charles Darwin came with the idea, he PROPOSED an explanation for something UNEXPLAINED (That is, if you do not believe in God) He CONVINCED people that his IDEA could establish a basis for -
@SocialistCatgirl A rational belief in the Natural world, and its events. It is a BELIEF, and it is DESIGNED to EXPLAIN accordingly after Human UNDERSTANDING.
If you BELIEVE Humans are the ONLY Race to hold "understanding" of the life, existence, and the Universe itself. Then YOU believe we are SPECIAL. You BELIEVE that the Naturalistic explanation is WRONG, thus it claims that we are but Animals that follow our Human primitive instincts.
And thus, proven that you BELIEVE in Ethnic rules.
@SocialistCatgirl Functions as a Torus. Thus, it cannot be proven by standard Math. He proclaims that the usage of Math has been wrong, up until now, his late discoveries. However. Other Mathematicians find his theory highly improbable. They -Believe- That the Binary base, let alone the Decimal base, cannot prove points alone. And that Math is a universal language, independent of Human boundaries, such as the fact that we are born with naturally finding Decimal easier than Binary.
@WILLTHEWGMAN Religion relies on these same senses, only doesn't make any observations, instead ignoring their advice and dominating them through spectacle. You really do type a lot of nonsense.
Not at all. Do you believe in human free-will of choice as more than biochemical illusion, if so from where are you deriving one's free-will agent outside of mere biochemical determinism? Are we culpable for our actions and if so, how & why within your world-view? Do you believe that that your self-awareness as an individual is no more than the biochemical body you were born with, if so, how do you make choices outside of this biochemical body to claim control over any of it?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Those are good and important questions that we all need to ask ourselves, and will surely form part of the basis of a universal moral structure. Of course, no one knows the answers, we can only make suggestions which become closer to the truth as new information becomes available. Those are the questions we need to work with, not whether god exists or not, because that is a philosophical dead end and a cop out both intellectually, philosophically and spiritually.
@WILLTHEWGMAN As for me, I won't claim to 'believe' any notion. But considering that we can see direct causal relationships between physical activity and the specifics of consciousness and behaviour, then yes it is definitely more truthful a claim than any religious person could make. It seems probable that the sum is greater than the parts, producing this free agent that is 'beyond' biochemical determinism. Simple fact is, we don't know, and I don't claim that I know.
@WILLTHEWGMAN They are good questions but youtube is not the place to publish reams of my musings. I just wanted to say that the key idea is in the admission of ignorance, thus forming all the evidence I need for agnostic atheism, the closest thing to belief I have. You acknowledge human limitation, which I agree with. We actually have many more than 5 senses, that was just a traditional way of simplifying them, bacteria have no other senses available, we communicate in many of the same ways.
@malithe00 You REALLY are the biggest, most pathetic retard on YouTube, Malelisp. Even the average Creationist moron has some small saving grace, but you, you're just a failed abortion not even worthy of being used as mince to feed starving rats.
@allieronthedouchebag, dawkins is the most pathetic retard on YT. I, on the other hand, am the most prolific and humorous. Take the time I said;
"richard dawkins purchased a farm and was intent on placing a proper “weathercock” on his new barn. The real estate agent knowing the immense intellect of dawkins asked why he wanted to use a weathercock? The brilliant professor replied, “If i used a weathercunt the wind would blow right through now wouldn’t it?”
@7th75thCallagainfaggot, I would disagree with imbecilic and misspelled post. your mom tells me that you like wearing your sisters shoes. Is that the only things of hers that you enjoy wearing? LOL clean your room faegala
@7th75thCallaghan He's hungry for some sex with men, but he doesn't get out much. I think the Cheetos swelled his ass so much he's jammed into his chair, so he has to fantasize on "teh interwebz" about being vigorously pummeled.
He's just another retarded Christaliban who sucks down the dogma which fights his innate sexuality and is hopelessly confused, as well as being deliberately stupid.
2. Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition, dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? Cont>
3. Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by these five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is self-evident as ourself itself that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
The uploader included the caption. 'While science is indelibly distinct from the field of ethics...' This is an enormous and, in my opinion, utterly ignorant suggestion. I consider it to be directly and irrefutably linked, and think that anyone who disregards science as not having the capacity to answer moral questions simply hasn't given the matter any real thought. I recommend you begin with a rough outline as provided by Sam Harris in 'Science can answer moral questions' found on Ted dot com.
@malithe00 Whereas you're a drooling moron that the sly and faithfooled target exclusively.
You're going to feel such a cretin (well, more of a cretin than you already are) when you find out your god isn't real, and you wasted your rather revolting futile little life shrilly squealing at atheists and other thinking people on YouTube.
Hopefully you'll be torn apart by stray hungry poodles, so you have plenty of time to reflect on what an über-asshole you were.
@malithe00 You seem obsessed with a thick, strong, swollen cock in your mouth, Malelisp. I've already told you to try a Gay bar, male dating site, or a church, which is full of repressed Homosexuals like you.
Your obsession with your anal hygiene is only one BIG clue that you're denying your innate sexuality, Malelisp, but it doesn't fool us. Go with your flow.
You know, it's not a sin to be Gay. Ask Ted Haggard.
Dawkins is not, nor should be, the spokesperson for any kind of assumed scientific-atheistic community. When it comes to the science of evolution, he is a good person to speak to. Unfortunately he is not good to answer questions on the moral framework that might arise from a 'scientific' methodology applied to the philosophical question - such answers do exist, and indeed are very positive and dispel the myth that science cannot provide such answers - but Dawkins is simply not the guy to ask.
Watching Dawkins try to do philosophy is painful. His point about consistency is not a point about science, it is a point about logic; it pertains to science insofar as science is logical. The other points concerning the import of science for moral discussion, require philosophy to analyse and evaluate that import. That is, as he rightly says, science can say when a nervous system develops; it is a philosophical issue as to what import that has for discussion concerning abortion.
The Richard premise is impossible for assuming. The science knowledge is coming from induction method mainly, it means, we infer a general rule from a huge data., however, it doesn't imply such rule can't be affected by circumstances, per example: the medicaments vary their effectiveness according to circumstances.
@HolyCity2012 --The security cameras will tell you if The King is or is not roaming Graceland at night; So why should we all subscibe to the atheist position?
@jiminiflix go to a museum, stop being lazy, the evidence is inescapable so long as you don't hide in a cave. Better still take a course in genetics - the real proof exists at the chemical level in the form of DNA. It is the lowest common denominator for the kind of life in question, and therefore provides the highest resolution data on the specifics of DNA. If you aren't willing to make the effort, then the truth is a grace you will never know.
@jiminiflix go to a museum, stop being lazy, the evidence is inescapable so long as you don't hide in a cave. Better still take a course in genetics - the real proof exists at the chemical level in the form of DNA. It is the lowest common denominator for the kind of life in question, and therefore provides the highest resolution data on the specifics of evolution. If you aren't willing to make the effort, then the truth is a grace you will never know.
@jiminiflix That's right, museums, if you want to see fossil evidence first hand that clearly shows change from one species to another, go to a museum. As I said, the best evidence exists in the form of DNA, but unless you are willing to work and make the effort, then the truth is not for you. That is why religion is so popular, it appeals to the lazy and incurious, who form the majority,
@7th75thCallaghan All the bones are fibre glass. The dates are different in each museum you go to. Evolution is a religion mate! You need lots of faith to follow it. You have your guru in Richard Dawkins who is lost in the head. He has no answers other than panspermia for our existance. He admits intelligence design in all life yet is just plain stubborn and hard hearted to trust God at His Word. If he would open his eyes and realise life is FAR MORE complex than even science knows.
@jiminiflix You are talking about casts made from the original fossils, you can see the real thing in only the best museums as they are very precious and need a lot of care. The dates are different because the fossils and species are different. Carbon dating is accurate, get over it. Or are you going to refuse all of what we know about ancient history now? Christian scholars use the same technique to date their own resources, so get over it. Evolution is a theory, not a religion. *loud sigh*
@7th75thCallaghan 1. All information is evidence of intelligence.2 Non living chemicals cannot become alive on their own 3.Design is apparent in the living world. 4. Nothing works untill everything works. 5.All things eventually slow down and become less ordered 6. Something must be eternal. 7.Dozens of parameters are just right for life on earth 8.The oldest fossils appear in "Cambrium Explosion" already formed and do not change much.Million years old fossils the same as todays creatures.
@jiminiflix 1. All 'information' is evidence of our intelligence only. 2. Non living chemicals do become life, as we have seen, that is all that comprises us and given the right conditions amino acids and membranes will form. 3. Design is not apparent, evolution is, especially if you study it first hand. 4. That is a poetic but silly statement, it signifies nothing: yes, all life is linked in some way, but if anything those links just provide further evidence for evolution.
@jiminiflix 5. All things become more ordered over time, not less ordered, as show the laws of entropy, life in that sense is disorder. 7. Why must something be eternal? This is merely a subjective hope and nothing that anyone can prove. 7. More than dozens my friend, but as someone who has no respect for science you couldn't hope to understand this subject. Again, it signifies nothing. 8. You have obviously been grossly misled on this subject, to a disturbing extent, perhaps read another book?
@jiminiflix I really think you just lie to people, and it is disgusting. Richard Dawkins is no guru, he is a popular science writer, he has never once admitted any notion of intelligent design, which is not scientific or a theory anyway, it is creationism with a new name. You should study the philosophy of logic and reason to better comprehend this subject. The Christian perception of the world is infinitely simple compared to what science offers, you don't know, as you haven't studied it.
@jiminiflix You really are out of your depth. If you want to argue with me, then first you should perhaps educate yourself to an acceptable level, I recommend to study genetics, in particular human genetics, at university level. After that go study theology and in particular the History of Christianity and the history of the bible, not in church but in a serious establishment, a critical reading. I recommend the Yale course. Until then, all of this will be way over your head.
@7th75thCallaghan 9. Human is Body soul and spirit. Chemicals alone cannot account for self awareness. 10.Language separates man from animals 11. Asexual reproduction: complimentary evolution of male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination and mathematical posibility.12.God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. History, chronology, biology and reproduction proves we came from a man/ woman .
@jiminiflix 9. Don't waste our time with that arbitrary nonsense. 10. Evolution of language can be seen in animals. 11. It might defy your imagination, and the mathematics that you know, but don't assume such things about everyone else. 12. God did not say such, various men claimed that someone that we commonly refer to as 'God' told them, and the 'God' that supposedly speaks to each one is schizophrenic, according to the behaviour changes. That text was then heavily modified according to need.
@7th75thCallaghan It s easy to call other less intellectual than you evolution believers becaue WE don't know science, therefore we are a lazy, religious majority. Oh man you just go on believing its scientific we all came from an assumed explosion, that every element come from hydrogen and all life evolved from rocks. You just believe its possible for cells to evolve form a perfect chemical soup and that your ancesters lived off NO FOOD. Go on believing that life mutates and IMPROVES! LOL!
@jiminiflix Yes, it is easy, and yes, it is justified considering you don't know science, yet there are so many resources out there to learn from. From what you have said, you clearly don't understand the theories that you are talking about. No one suggested that all life 'evolved from rocks'. I don't want to legitimise your childish nonsense with a proper answer, but I would like to point you in the right direction. At least let me discredit some of the particularly bad misunderstandings...
@jiminiflix firstly, evolution and the big bang are two seperate ideas, we aren't discussing the big bang here, but the existence of life on earth. Evolution does not suggest that cells 'evolve' from a chemical soup, I suggest you read a book. It only suggests that amino acids do, this isn't evolution, you do not understand how to use the word. They had food, you think a plant needs a steak every night to live? For some organisms, oxygen, chemicals, even oil and metal can provide the energy they
@jiminiflix need to survive. So don't go saying that as if it were a point unless you want to be laughed at by anyone intelligent. Also, you seem to think that life 'improves' through evolution, this is not the case, and the theory clearly refutes that. Mutation only provides the -possibility- for evolution, so long as the corresponding selection pressure is applied and that mutant gene is selected for, causing its instance in the gene pool to increase. If by improving you mean an increase in
@jiminiflix complexity, this comes about by a very simple form of mutation (which Christians still refuse to even try to understand in their blind faith) called an addition mutation. It is all beautifully simple and logical once you have taken the time to understand it, and in my experience, the simplest answers are often the truest. The creationist belief of 'then it happened' is not simple, its simply illogical, big difference. Read. A. Fucking. Book. And. Stop. Wasting. My. Time. Thanks.
Some people (you) are just stupid, ignorant or stubborn and will never see the light. Science will win in the end, because it works. Those of us who have unhinged ourselves from the shackles of indoctrination are free. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere" ~ Voltaire
@Reaperlastfm Could anyone be more indoctrinated than you self? Is not science now your very conscience? Science plays an important role, but science is not 100% in agreement with evolution Reaperlastfm. You call me stupid for disbelieving the faith of the "establishment". Must I be another one of the crowd following zombies? Is not the very nature of science to question and debate? Evolution as I see it is wanting to fill the grand canyon with only a spatula of plaster.
You may be the cousin of a cow mate but I am not...science is not evolution and evolution is not science. Your level of morals is very low and I suppose you could logically explain away any moral law, even that mans need of law and morals is what separates us from animals. We are all made in Gods image and by Gods law which is the definative standard for moral right and wrong is what all will be judged under. We have all broken the 10 commandments and so we all need a redeemer in Christ Jesus.
@xTheFBP I agree with everything you said passed the first line. There is TONS of controversy in science. The difference between the controversy between science, religeon and the classroom is that in a scientific controversy both sides are trying to find the truth given the facts instead of their beliefs and eirther side will happily give up their argument if sufficient evidence is provided for one argument over another. Religin however disgregards evidence in favor of belief. Which is bs.
"Scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of his thoughts and make him more than ever contemptuous of such knowledge as he did not possess."
@Heurvert As much as I respect Orwell I think that one is horseshit.. Why would scientific education cause people to lose interest in literature? In history? If anything I think that education expands the mind and nourishes artistic-ness, haha... In any case I guess we're lucky that many people aren't smart enough to be scientists
@PhantomGanon1 I think you misunderstood the meaning of the quote. What 'Orwell' meant is that scientific education shouldn't be increased by adding more facts to learn, it needs to be increased by adding more curiosity and fascination for your surroundings as well as a higher respect for the way science enriches our lives.
While you're at the whole compassion for illusory, organic bullshit thing, you should also learn to respect animals because society deems them to be terribly cute and worthy of compassion for some unexplained mystery reason.
C'mon you guys, just sacrifice your own will for the will of your fellow dust beings. My dusty, lusty emotions and feelings are important to you because...uh well...Because I'm the same species or whatever. You can also go to jail if you don't respect my dusty, lusty dross being as well. Love the dirt or else!
Piece of crap obnoxious Illuminist says that torture is necessary? Tell us what you know about the "Doomsday Bomb" you evil disgusting excuse for a human being! Cough, Cough!
He has a point, but it draws on practical reasoning that may discard certain outcomes. Why would someone consider a human embryo worth keeping and not a chimpanzee? the answer may be because while the embryo is not a fully developed human, killing it will prevent the opportunity for it to become one. Utilitarian and scientific thought isn't bad but it lacks sometimes a sense of humanity.
I'm still convinced that if somehow a real asshole (sphincter and all) could be made to speak with an eloquent British accent it could sell books to the average YT atheist.
Dawkins has made a religion out of atheism. He believes in the soul. Try this: Daniel Dennett - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews at 3:50 Dawkins say: "a soul can emerge from soulless neurons "; that is theology at it's worst. The neo-Lamarkism selfish gene theory requires a leap of Faith bigger the Holy Trinity. I though atheists were on the evidence required side of the fence if you want to come to the Faith side please do it through the front door. Accept God. God Bless.
@sybo59 Yes, I know, many people define soul as conciousness. Is a matter of semantics. No matter how you define it, natural selection don't have an explanation for soul/conciousness or a self programing brain. Dawkins tried to explain it with a bogus theory but has found no proof in the las 34 yrs. God Bless
@dejesusluisx Either way, we know that our consciousness exists, and if you know this is all he refers to by using "soul", you must admit that saying "He believes in the soul" is misleading--to put it mildly. I, myself, wouldn't call it a soul, precisely because of its mystical connotation; but I'm not here to debate any of these points, just making sure his words are accurately represented, and not maliciously misconstrued.
@sybo59 Have you look at the video? I don't use the word soul, Dawkins does. He could have very well used conciousness, he had interviewed Depak Chopra and others like, he knows exactly what he was doing when he said that the soul can come from souless neurons, he is recruiting, he is on a mission. Don't be fooled, open your eyes. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx Believing in the soul does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. While I doubt he is a spiritual person, I know of many people who are spiritual but not religious. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
@Decivre ""I know of many people who are spiritual but not religious."" Yes, but Dawkins is neither. He's in an active campaing to eliminate hope from people's lives, would you call that good or evil? He's using science as an excuse, without presenting scientific evidence for his claims, good or evil?. He blatantly disrespects God, good or evil? He disrespects people by disrespecting their beliefs and comparing them to fairy tales, good or evil? I can go on and on, but I hope you got the idea.
@dejesusluisx He is not trying to eliminate hope, he is trying to show people how to hope without putting faith in unproven claims. Not quite sure what you mean by using science as an excuse...how is it an excuse when it gives us all of the reliable knowledge we know? He disrespects God...how can you do that when it hasn't been proven god exists? Would you tell an adult that santa wasn't real? Why don't you just respect them?? He's a beacon for common sense, which the world needs more of.
@echalko ""how to hope without putting faith in unproven claims"' How to hope what? Atheists have nothing to hope. That we get flying cars?, that we can fit an I phone in our brains? what kind of hope materialism can bring? ""using science as an excuse"" for selling books about atheism when science has nothing to do with religion, they belong to different realms. ""it hasn't been proven god exists"" Not to you but to me indeed, and to millions of others. "a beacon for common sense" try for evil
@dejesusluisx Ad hominem attacks again I see. God has been "proven" to you and to millions of others. That's fantastic. Then why hasn't he been proven to me yet? Before you say that he has and that I just refuse to accept it, I was a believer once and even thought I might grow up to be a priest. Then rationality kicked in, and I realized I couldn't force myself to believe this stuff. Religion provides a cover for ANY evil action to be done in its name, so how does atheism promote evil?
@echalko ""Ad hominem attacks again I see"" To whom? saying atheism doesn't have a goal for manking is not ad hominem, is a fact. ""why hasn't he been proven to me"" ""rationality kicked in"" You can only find what you're looking for, if you stop looking and rejected Him, there is no way you'll get any proof. Can I ask what religion you were? I got my proof and countless other people I know. You didn't get yours because you were not trully convinced.
@dejesusluisx The fact that you claim that atheists have nothing to hope for shows that you have an inadequate understanding of what an atheist is. I have plenty of things in this world that make me happy, and plenty of things to hope for. God is not necessary for those things to be.
And you are correct. Secular people do not believe they have an inherent goal. However, being able to decide my own destiny is probably the greatest part of being alive. I alone choose my goals, and no one else.
@Decivre "make me happy" what about a common goal for mankind?, "me", forgive me if I'm rude, is selfish. "'I alone choose my goals, and no one else."" Have you actually given a serious thought to the consequences that way of thinking can have in mankind? With each new generation morality will drift a little, until in a few generations morality as we know it today won't exist. Your goals aren't the same as a greedy politician or a lazy person wanting to live of the system. Not all think like u.
@dejesusluisx You presume that positive progress for the whole of mankind isn't something that makes me happy. It does. Furthermore, everyone already does work under the idea that they alone choose their goals. No one ever flips a coin or demands someone else pick their future career; they do so themselves. You just don't admit you prescribe to the same thing.
The problem here is that you seem to work with the first presumption that all or most people are inherently evil, when I would disagree.
@Decivre ""positive progress for the whole of mankind isn't something that makes me happy"" It feel good about progress, but if manking ONLY think about progress, we are doomed. ""everyone already does work under the idea that they alone choose their goals"" also true, but I'm not talking about personal goals I'm talking about a goal we all can share as humans. Every true believer wants to behave like Jesus, to be pure, right, we all aspire to sainthood. Continue...
@Decivre ... Immagine if all of a sudden, all believers in the world find there is no hope and no eternal life, that is just everyone for thenselves. That will be a lot of people wanting to be the first in everything. Selfishness, vanity, greed, infidelity, homosexuality, anger, lies, deceit, manipulating and using people for your own benefit, there are no laws against any of them, the only thing keeping all mankind in turning into all that mud is that little voice in 80% of the population.
@Decivre ""The problem here is that you seem to work with the first presumption that all or most people are inherently evil, when I would disagree."' Yes, people are iherently evil. Do you believe in evolution? Didn't we evolved from animals, well then we are inherently evil. Is in our genes, is our animal instinct what we call evil. Think about it, all the evil things I mentioned before plus killing, rapes, robbery, all are animal instincs in ourselves. God is the source of all good.
The science of moralities in mankind only dwells in the very souls of humanity as in love, hate, envy, pity, sympathy, empathy, hope and faith. Without the scientific study of the spirit in which these things only manifest from; science can't pretend to have any answers because the question of where these things are derived from and dwell from has never been studied. A universe and life without intent is the only science we study today.
Science is not a place where the assumed necessity or not of moralities can be debated, God or not. There is no science in morality because is a sub-set of philosophy and not a scientific study. Knowledge of good/evil's existence is only in philosophy/religion. Philosophy & humanities are the very same wants in human desires as in religion for a meaningful life. All Atheist if honest in science alone should reject all morality the same as religion and any philosophy as only opinion.
i was quite suprised by that. i've said for years that science is a basis for objective, nonrelativistic morality, that newton's third law of motion is the only commandment one need live by. but i found sam harris' view on islam utterly objectionable and disgusting. that he would write a book on a subject i've spent so much time on, and which so few others have dared to venture near, suprised me a lot. i have yet to read the book, however.
The "science" of morality is not new. Human beings have been trying to control what humans "ought" to do for thousands of years. Some of these methods have been very scientific. The problem remains that they were largely wrong in a moral sense. If there is anything that science can contribute to morality, it is a very thorough and precise understanding of just exactly what a human being is. We don't have such a thing, so science is not going to do much good.
@circusOFprecision What Harris argues is that facts about morality reduce to facts about human well-being. And facts about human well-being are in the domain of science (biology, chemistry, sociology, economics, etc.). Just like what we ought to do in medicine reduces to facts about human physical health. No body is trying to control anything, but if one strives for well-being there is no doubt that there are right and wrong answer of doing that.
If well-being is the assumption we choose to start with, or the goal we wish to achieve, than I think science can weigh in. But science is reductionistic. Anything having to do with human beings must be approached on the whole. That is a huge problem for philosophers. Science is not sophisticated enough, at least not yet. Our technology is very developed, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the science behind it is properly and fully understood.
@circusOFprecision That's exactly what Sam Harris argues. Although science doesn't have all the answers yet (and may never find answers to certain questions) that shouldn't stop us from asserting that there ARE facts to be know about human well being and therefore about morality.
No one can claim some reasoning in an obligation to follow any moralities as a value system via science nor can natural selection and equality coincide, to except one is to reject the other. How can evolution bring a value of moralities and equality in mankind via natural selection, a non-equality process? How can such evolutionary process create such a notion by random chance then have some claim as to an obligation to follow such feelings in moralities by only existing by dumb luck?
Nice. The good news is that evolution in the way you describe it is not science. It's 19th century materialist philosophy. The way life propagates itself is a separate issue from how life forms should behave. Understanding the material processes behind life can't in and of itself be the understanding required to make judgments about the needs, wants, desires, and actions of living things. Science can only help us better define things physically. Science can help, not answer.
There is no "should behave" in regard to good/evil in nature or norm in behavior in actions within freewill of mankind. Only philosophy, religion or God makes such limits. Without a God there is no evil, just capability. Propagation via rape in mankind has no right or wrong in the theory of evolution or it's process, it just works or don't work. There is no moral rights and wrongs in the science of life, just can and cant's. No such thing as science in or of humanities.
I agree. But that doesn't mean that what we observe about the world through science can't help us make better moral decisions. But I think there is a hidden agenda here to try and rid the world of philosophical and religious thought, having science pose as the answer. It just means that we need something better, more whole, in order to deal with humanity. We can deal with the animal, or the organ, or this or that, but as you said, there is no such thing as a science of humanities.
I agree, all want a meaning to ones life and a reason for it, science fails at this thus far. Atheists knowing that philosophy and religion in moralities are sown from the same cloth can only look for true meaning in science. The soul is the real you that you know exists beyond your physical body. The you that knows you are alive and an individual whether a twin or not. The soul is your self awareness and the only place where love, hate, envy, sympathy and emotion is real.
Science has become the means by which human beings manipulate nature in order to produce technology. Unfortunately, the technology we possess is nothing like the universe itself, it just mimics the fundamental processes that allow it to "work". It will never explain why nature is the way it is because science has no respect for nature, it is completely indifferent. The moral problem comes before the scientific problem. Just as the soul comes before the manifestation of the body.
Where does morality come from if not religion. Morality does not exist without religious guidance. The devils greatest accomplishment was to make people believe in no god. I was born in Pakistan where so many people see devils at night it is a norm. You can hear them teasing animals at night.
@ifystube Has anyone taken pictures of these devils that so many people claim to see? How about film? If they are so prevalent it should be possible for scientists to investigate them and find out what they look like and what they are, their physiology etc. Or are they like vampires, and don't show up on film? If so, it should be possible to capture on film their effects - animals would be seen being tormented by something invisible. Why has no-one investigated this claim?
Think about it. Jinn and devils are hidden from humans especially non religious people as a test from God. If devils were visible there would be irrefutable proof for the existence of Allah, it would be more obvious than "fire is hot". Also, science has not advanced enough to prove such beings. Modern science has proved more than 80% of the Quran which was written more than 14 centuries ago E.g. sexes of plants, water cycle, big bang, the sun spins on its own axis and the list goes on
I don't really take sides on this one, & I love you Dawkins, but if feeling pain has anything to do with when it's okay to kill something, I'm sure there are many ways to murder a full-grown adult in his sleep. I don't find that to be particularly moral.
jmnthe3rd 1 day ago
some sweet info here
staranjela 4 days ago
very interesting thanks
osclarkos 4 days ago
why are you reading this comment? Please watch the video ^^
wullz16 5 days ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
jjclassjj 5 days ago
Very enjoyable thank you
willbirful 6 days ago
look like Richard ate something spicy for lunch here lol
TheDaringAtheist 1 week ago
love the video really good
jjclassjj 1 week ago
i enjoyed this vid
simysimss 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins has the coolest and calmest voice i've ever heard.
matthewtop 2 weeks ago 11
@matthewtop: If you don't already, watch c0nc0rdance's videos. He's got a super calm, cool voice, and he's a great speaker.
McTaggStar 1 week ago
Why in the hell are you genetic defectives even posting on this video thread. You clearly do not have the intelligence to even be here.
twoolf 3 weeks ago
"scientists" are dishonest. At every turn they are proven to be dishonest, so how can "they" inform morality? douchebags LOL
malithe00 3 weeks ago
I love his speeches.
longplainfirstnation 1 month ago
@longplainfirstnationasswipe, most faegalas do LOL
malithe00 3 weeks ago
I'm an atheist, but Dawkin's faith in science and reason as a cure all for humanity's problems is the stuff of wishful thinking.
bxjam85 3 months ago
@bxjam85 Really? I can't think of one of humanity's current problems that can't be cures with science and reason. Can you? And, may I hear it, so we can talk about whether it's curable?
Pomme843 3 months ago
@Pomme843 Wow. You scientific evangelists sound just as fideistic as fedeists. Morality cannot reduce to science. That is a horrible misconception of morality. Science can only describe what is, but not what ought to be. Ethics should inform science and vice-versa but, when it comes to describing what ought to be, morality is ultimately informed by sentiments and sentiments vary depending on culture, history and circumstance.
bxjam85 3 months ago
@bxjam85 Okay, when you say "cure problems", I assume you're not talking about moral questions. Of course science cannot give us moral precedents. You're strawman-ing me here.
My point is that if you start out with a moral notion, like "happiness is desirable", then you can solve most "descriptive problems", and create a society, a world, even, that maximizes happiness. Sentiments, and happiness, are the result of electrical impulses in brains. These can be used to make moral systems universal.
Pomme843 3 months ago
@Pomme843 Electrical impulses in the brain cannot be used to make moral systems universal or objective. Electrical impulses/sentiments vary between individuals and most especially cultures. You will never be able to make moral systems universal between human cultures and any attempt to do so is likely to result in error. Reducing morality and life itself to nothing but "happiness" is another mistake that the West faithfully adheres to today.
bxjam85 3 months ago
@bxjam85 Mistake? How so?
I don't think it's impossible to make everyone adhere to the same moral system. Differences in individual brain can be fair easily overcome with the sufficient technological level, through manipulation of each brain manually, genetical modifications, etc. Across cultures? Well, I think that more and more people will be acclimated to some utilitarian idea, and perhaps come to like the idea of augmented happiness through science.
Nothing can make a moral system objective.
Pomme843 3 months ago
@Pomme843 Just reading this utopian nonsense is painful. Yes, differences in every individual human brain can be overcome if we make every human being into the Borg from Star Trek, but I would rather die before living in such a world. Technophilia is a dirty bitch and a stubborn dick. Unfortunately, just like a Christian who's waiting for the rapture and the kingdom of God, you will never live to see the day that "heaven" is created on earth.
bxjam85 3 months ago
@bxjam85 That's but a bunch of unsubstanciated claims. Furthermore, death is also completely overcomable (if that's a word), through technology. Cryonics, nanotech, gene manipulation, the merger of brains and manifactured machines.
There's no need to make a Borg-like society, although that would be a possibility. An individual brain can be manipulated individually, with the right technology.
I don't claim that any of this will happen, nor that I will take part in it. I'm saying it's possible.
Pomme843 3 months ago
@bxjam85 Faith though is a belief without evidence, and we can easily investigate the things that science and reason have done for us, without reason we wouldnt have been allowed to have this discussion and without science we wouldnt be having it online either
moroney1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hmm i wonder if torture would get the wrong code, and instead the code would accelerate or trigger the bomb... anyway great stuff as always.
DjDedan 3 months ago
hmm i wonder if torture would get the wrong code, and instead the code would accelerate or trigger the bomb... anyway great stuff as always.
DjDedan 3 months ago
No matter what Richard Dawkins talks about, there's always a throng of comments at his heels bickering about religion.
Skadoosh417 3 months ago
dawkins is right, between him and a monkey there is no difference.
sarotran 4 months ago
1. Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions and ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN It's a matter of belief. Richard Dawkins strongly believes there is no god, nor God himself. He believes Evolution is true. These are beliefs. Individual beliefs. Where as religion itself is objective beliefs in a group of people, a nation, or even the entire Human race.
What you are seeing in this video, is Propaganda. It is information about a specifically chosen topic, designated to change your view, opinion, or reaction. That is unless you actually think during the process....
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
The truth of the matter is that religious beliefs are highly subjective rather than objective. The scientific method is built on objectivity.
An objective statement is informed only by direct observation of evidence without any bias toward a particular conclusion at the outset of said observation. Religion assumes a deity or force prior to the observations, and its claims aren't falsifiable.
Scientific inquiry is based on the falsifiable hypothesis and tangible evidence.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
As for whether or not accepting evolution as a fact based upon previous observations qualifies as a belief, I would posit to you that one who argues that evolution is a scientific fact means that it is a strongly supported model.
In other words, they are saying that after extensive testing of the mechanisms and processes which may or may not support the hypothesis that species change over time, the verdict thus far is that they in fact do change. It's a model, not a belief.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl The definition of "Belief" is as follows: "refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof.";
As none of us can nor will hold absolute truth, all hypothesis, and, or, theories, require belief.
Evolution is an idea, that is designed thus designated to explaining what has yet been unexplained in the fields of Biology, and Nature itself. Marko Rodin holds a theory that the world of Physics, functions
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
Let me re-type the definition of belief, putting the part you're failing to pay attention to in all caps.
"Refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right WITHOUT POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE OR PROOF."
Remember that in order for a hypothesis to be accepted, sufficient evidence has to be gathered. That would be the proof that the definition of "belief" is referring to. Your definition only works if hypotheses are accepted w/o evidence.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
Evolutionary theory is an explanation of phenomena which are regularly observed in biological study. Yes, so what? It still has to fit the evidence, so it still requires proof. That's how hypothesis testing works, you have to check to see if the model proposed fits the observations.
Evolutionary theory currently fits all the evidence gathered in all fields of Biology. Its continued acceptance is contingent upon continued evidence. Check the definition of belief again.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl You hold the answer in your hands, yet you blindly trample on it.
If i told you that God was behind everything, as i truly believe, you would likely find that idea, thus perception, ludicrous. However. If i proposed that Evolution is the basis for which things can evolve, you would likely propose that as a generally good viewpoint, as you by "default" hold this viewpoint.
Now. If this is not obvious enough for you. Then let me elaborate my opinion further -
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
It's actually fairly straightforward. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths, only facts and evidence. In reality, scientific claims are by virtue of their very nature NEVER absolute truths because they must always be falsifiable.
The only element you're claiming to be a belief at this point is the belief that humans are capable of understanding and interpreting the evidence they gather, or that the evidence is evidence at all. What's the alternative to evidence and data?
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
And let's not get hasty on making statements about my attitude toward theology. You don't have a monopoly on Christianity, pal. If you catch my drift.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
You do not understand how simple it is to eliminate the Silly questions you raised yourself. You can even use it as an counter-argument. Everyone believes, and it is what makes learning possible. You'll have to deal with it. Any Theist would use his or her rationality to establish the basis for a belief in the Almighty Lord.
We've seen evidence of him. What more is there to ask of him? Open your Heart my friend, and you will see the obvious that you are denying.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
Wait a minute. It seems as though you're trying to convert me to Christianity. Hon, you're thoroughly confused about me. I'm already a Christian, and I already believe in God. I just happen to also understand the principles of scientific inquiry.
Why is it so important to claim that evolutionary theory is a belief instead of an evidence-driven explanation of observable phenomena? Why kick and scream so much about this?
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl You are violating one of the Commandments, thus proving that logically you cannot and will not be a Christian.
Do you think Men can hold absolute truth, if so. When some middle Easterners establish from reason and Logic that Westerners are Immoral, Idiotic, and Brainwashed, are these beliefs, or facts?
How do you rationalize one claim over another, and make up which is to be the one biased of truth, contrary to biased on subjective beliefs?
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl Thus - If so i claimed that you were not a Christian, as such i have already done, using my Logic, are you to factualize that such truths are wrong, because you simply: "know yourself better";.
And. How is one cometh to know you, without being wrong? How can one establish a truth based on your behavior, without being wrong?
Is your opinion not Subjective? Do you hold Objective truths from your mere opinions?
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
As far as demonstrating that I'm not a Christian, you only did about a quarter of the job. You have to say WHICH commandment I'm violating and demonstrate concretely that I AM in fact violating it (that's another quarter of the job), then the other half is that I have to continue violating the commandment in spite of being shown clearly that I am in violation.
And I'm pretty sure I've told you a billion times now that evidence has to inform any scientific claim.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl If you break one of them 10 Commandments while aware, then you are NOT a Christian. What goes for your redemption. I do not think the Almighty Lord gives us opportunity, then to redeem you on the basis of your "acceptance" of the God himself. However. I wouldn't know the answer, as i hold nothing else than a Human connection to the Lord.
However. If you think the Christian faith EVER mentions that redemption is for all, then you are VERY wrong. This is false teaching!
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
First of all, I never implied that I did not believe in God. I only stated that belief in God does not follow scientific criteria and therefore is a non-scientific thing. I may have made the IMPLICATURE that I was an Atheist, but I never made the implication (and yes, there is a very big difference).
Secondly, the commandment is that I may not worship false idols. As I do not worship any idols whatsoever, nor do I adhere to evolutionary theory in a religious manner, you fail.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
There are three schools of thought in Christianity with regard to the issue of salvation: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism. The first states that those who will attain salvation are predestined to do so, and those who attain damnation are also predestined to do so, therefore Christ's sacrifice was only for the elect. The other two state that salvation is available to all, and that they only need to take it willingly. The last one states that everyone eventually will.
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder
So the question in my mind is whether your are a Calvinist (you sound like one) or an Arminian. I know for SURE you're not a Universalist, and I've serious doubts that you're an Arminian.
You're also questioning one of the three generally accepted qualities of God, specifically omnibenevolence. All but Calvinist schools of Christianity accept this as a quality of God, so again I suspect you to be a Calvinist.
I'm not so easy to beat in a theological debate after all, eh?
SocialistCatgirl 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl Your first violation was to imply you did not believe in the existence of the Lord. Your second violation: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." This is of course not a completely correct translation of the Hebrew texts. But it is close enough, as Hebrew has words English does not. It states that you may not idolize anything, nor may your picture anything.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Correction: "May not idolize anything, nor may you picture anything - On Earth, in Heavens."
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl Everything WE think and know, as a whole, is A belief in the world-view, that we CAN hold absolute truth. HOWEVER -
Humans CANNOT hold absolute truth, logically. We PERCEIVE of an absolute reality, according to our reason and Logic. We SEE, thus we ACKNOWLEDGE what we see.
When Charles Darwin came with the idea, he PROPOSED an explanation for something UNEXPLAINED (That is, if you do not believe in God) He CONVINCED people that his IDEA could establish a basis for -
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl A rational belief in the Natural world, and its events. It is a BELIEF, and it is DESIGNED to EXPLAIN accordingly after Human UNDERSTANDING.
If you BELIEVE Humans are the ONLY Race to hold "understanding" of the life, existence, and the Universe itself. Then YOU believe we are SPECIAL. You BELIEVE that the Naturalistic explanation is WRONG, thus it claims that we are but Animals that follow our Human primitive instincts.
And thus, proven that you BELIEVE in Ethnic rules.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl Functions as a Torus. Thus, it cannot be proven by standard Math. He proclaims that the usage of Math has been wrong, up until now, his late discoveries. However. Other Mathematicians find his theory highly improbable. They -Believe- That the Binary base, let alone the Decimal base, cannot prove points alone. And that Math is a universal language, independent of Human boundaries, such as the fact that we are born with naturally finding Decimal easier than Binary.
MrVirtualCoder 4 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Religion relies on these same senses, only doesn't make any observations, instead ignoring their advice and dominating them through spectacle. You really do type a lot of nonsense.
7th75thCallaghan 2 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan
Not at all. Do you believe in human free-will of choice as more than biochemical illusion, if so from where are you deriving one's free-will agent outside of mere biochemical determinism? Are we culpable for our actions and if so, how & why within your world-view? Do you believe that that your self-awareness as an individual is no more than the biochemical body you were born with, if so, how do you make choices outside of this biochemical body to claim control over any of it?
WILLTHEWGMAN 2 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Those are good and important questions that we all need to ask ourselves, and will surely form part of the basis of a universal moral structure. Of course, no one knows the answers, we can only make suggestions which become closer to the truth as new information becomes available. Those are the questions we need to work with, not whether god exists or not, because that is a philosophical dead end and a cop out both intellectually, philosophically and spiritually.
7th75thCallaghan 2 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN As for me, I won't claim to 'believe' any notion. But considering that we can see direct causal relationships between physical activity and the specifics of consciousness and behaviour, then yes it is definitely more truthful a claim than any religious person could make. It seems probable that the sum is greater than the parts, producing this free agent that is 'beyond' biochemical determinism. Simple fact is, we don't know, and I don't claim that I know.
7th75thCallaghan 2 months ago
@7th75thCallagainfaggot, ALL THAT TO ADMIT IGNORANCE???? LOL douchebag, typical deceptive douchebag
malithe00 3 weeks ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN They are good questions but youtube is not the place to publish reams of my musings. I just wanted to say that the key idea is in the admission of ignorance, thus forming all the evidence I need for agnostic atheism, the closest thing to belief I have. You acknowledge human limitation, which I agree with. We actually have many more than 5 senses, that was just a traditional way of simplifying them, bacteria have no other senses available, we communicate in many of the same ways.
7th75thCallaghan 2 months ago
@7th75thCallagainfaggot, LOL you DO ADMIT IGNORANCE AT EVERY TURN!!! LOL you're stupid but your thesaurus widget is top notch LOL douchebag
malithe00 3 weeks ago
@malithe00 You REALLY are the biggest, most pathetic retard on YouTube, Malelisp. Even the average Creationist moron has some small saving grace, but you, you're just a failed abortion not even worthy of being used as mince to feed starving rats.
allieron 3 weeks ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@allieronthedouchebag, dawkins is the most pathetic retard on YT. I, on the other hand, am the most prolific and humorous. Take the time I said;
"richard dawkins purchased a farm and was intent on placing a proper “weathercock” on his new barn. The real estate agent knowing the immense intellect of dawkins asked why he wanted to use a weathercock? The brilliant professor replied, “If i used a weathercunt the wind would blow right through now wouldn’t it?”
malithe00 3 weeks ago
@malithe00 You really are a very ineffective trollete I must say.
7th75thCallaghan 3 weeks ago
@7th75thCallagainfaggot, I would disagree with imbecilic and misspelled post. your mom tells me that you like wearing your sisters shoes. Is that the only things of hers that you enjoy wearing? LOL clean your room faegala
malithe00 3 weeks ago
@7th75thCallaghan He's hungry for some sex with men, but he doesn't get out much. I think the Cheetos swelled his ass so much he's jammed into his chair, so he has to fantasize on "teh interwebz" about being vigorously pummeled.
He's just another retarded Christaliban who sucks down the dogma which fights his innate sexuality and is hopelessly confused, as well as being deliberately stupid.
He needs a good shrink, poor kid.
allieron 3 weeks ago
2. Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition, dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
3. Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by these five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is self-evident as ourself itself that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
I agree it's a moral issue, but the government shouldn't be involved in any decision about your own body.
annpetasupporter 7 months ago
The uploader included the caption. 'While science is indelibly distinct from the field of ethics...' This is an enormous and, in my opinion, utterly ignorant suggestion. I consider it to be directly and irrefutably linked, and think that anyone who disregards science as not having the capacity to answer moral questions simply hasn't given the matter any real thought. I recommend you begin with a rough outline as provided by Sam Harris in 'Science can answer moral questions' found on Ted dot com.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago 16
@7th75thCallaghan I enjoy your comments, sir. That is all.
pinkidiot3 4 months ago
@7th75thCallagainfaggot, you're a TYPICAL white, teenage, boy that academics target EXCLUSIVELY LOL
malithe00 3 weeks ago
@malithe00 Whereas you're a drooling moron that the sly and faithfooled target exclusively.
You're going to feel such a cretin (well, more of a cretin than you already are) when you find out your god isn't real, and you wasted your rather revolting futile little life shrilly squealing at atheists and other thinking people on YouTube.
Hopefully you'll be torn apart by stray hungry poodles, so you have plenty of time to reflect on what an über-asshole you were.
allieron 3 weeks ago
@allieronthedouchebag, you are a level headed faggot, that means you have cum dripping out of BOTH corners of your mouth LOL douchebag
malithe00 3 weeks ago
@malithe00 You seem obsessed with a thick, strong, swollen cock in your mouth, Malelisp. I've already told you to try a Gay bar, male dating site, or a church, which is full of repressed Homosexuals like you.
Your obsession with your anal hygiene is only one BIG clue that you're denying your innate sexuality, Malelisp, but it doesn't fool us. Go with your flow.
You know, it's not a sin to be Gay. Ask Ted Haggard.
allieron 3 weeks ago
@allieronthedouchebag, I'm just noticing your side of the isle dicky LOL douchebag
malithe00 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is not, nor should be, the spokesperson for any kind of assumed scientific-atheistic community. When it comes to the science of evolution, he is a good person to speak to. Unfortunately he is not good to answer questions on the moral framework that might arise from a 'scientific' methodology applied to the philosophical question - such answers do exist, and indeed are very positive and dispel the myth that science cannot provide such answers - but Dawkins is simply not the guy to ask.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
he looks stressed in this video
victorscarlet 7 months ago
Watching Dawkins try to do philosophy is painful. His point about consistency is not a point about science, it is a point about logic; it pertains to science insofar as science is logical. The other points concerning the import of science for moral discussion, require philosophy to analyse and evaluate that import. That is, as he rightly says, science can say when a nervous system develops; it is a philosophical issue as to what import that has for discussion concerning abortion.
zetetic666 8 months ago
@zetetic666
Thank you! That's what I was thinking but couldn't put into words.
annpetasupporter 7 months ago
This isn't Dawkins at his best....
jlmadill 8 months ago
The Richard premise is impossible for assuming. The science knowledge is coming from induction method mainly, it means, we infer a general rule from a huge data., however, it doesn't imply such rule can't be affected by circumstances, per example: the medicaments vary their effectiveness according to circumstances.
Leivinn20 8 months ago
Question: How do you prove the atheist position to be true and accurate?
WorldBibleUnion454 8 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454
By failing to find sufficient evidence for the theist position.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 8 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 Laugh Out Loud! I demand proof that Elvis Presley is NOT still alive and roaming Graceland late at night.
HolyCity2012 8 months ago
@HolyCity2012 --The security cameras will tell you if The King is or is not roaming Graceland at night; So why should we all subscibe to the atheist position?
WorldBibleUnion454 8 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 He must be invisible, since we cannot see him. We know in our heart that Elvis Presley exists.
HolyCity2012 8 months ago
Show me an observable fact. Post the link so we all can see it.
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix go to a museum, stop being lazy, the evidence is inescapable so long as you don't hide in a cave. Better still take a course in genetics - the real proof exists at the chemical level in the form of DNA. It is the lowest common denominator for the kind of life in question, and therefore provides the highest resolution data on the specifics of DNA. If you aren't willing to make the effort, then the truth is a grace you will never know.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@jiminiflix go to a museum, stop being lazy, the evidence is inescapable so long as you don't hide in a cave. Better still take a course in genetics - the real proof exists at the chemical level in the form of DNA. It is the lowest common denominator for the kind of life in question, and therefore provides the highest resolution data on the specifics of evolution. If you aren't willing to make the effort, then the truth is a grace you will never know.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan Museums? LOL
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@jiminiflix That's right, museums, if you want to see fossil evidence first hand that clearly shows change from one species to another, go to a museum. As I said, the best evidence exists in the form of DNA, but unless you are willing to work and make the effort, then the truth is not for you. That is why religion is so popular, it appeals to the lazy and incurious, who form the majority,
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago 6
@7th75thCallaghan All the bones are fibre glass. The dates are different in each museum you go to. Evolution is a religion mate! You need lots of faith to follow it. You have your guru in Richard Dawkins who is lost in the head. He has no answers other than panspermia for our existance. He admits intelligence design in all life yet is just plain stubborn and hard hearted to trust God at His Word. If he would open his eyes and realise life is FAR MORE complex than even science knows.
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@jiminiflix You are talking about casts made from the original fossils, you can see the real thing in only the best museums as they are very precious and need a lot of care. The dates are different because the fossils and species are different. Carbon dating is accurate, get over it. Or are you going to refuse all of what we know about ancient history now? Christian scholars use the same technique to date their own resources, so get over it. Evolution is a theory, not a religion. *loud sigh*
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan 1. All information is evidence of intelligence.2 Non living chemicals cannot become alive on their own 3.Design is apparent in the living world. 4. Nothing works untill everything works. 5.All things eventually slow down and become less ordered 6. Something must be eternal. 7.Dozens of parameters are just right for life on earth 8.The oldest fossils appear in "Cambrium Explosion" already formed and do not change much.Million years old fossils the same as todays creatures.
jiminiflix 6 months ago
@jiminiflix 1. All 'information' is evidence of our intelligence only. 2. Non living chemicals do become life, as we have seen, that is all that comprises us and given the right conditions amino acids and membranes will form. 3. Design is not apparent, evolution is, especially if you study it first hand. 4. That is a poetic but silly statement, it signifies nothing: yes, all life is linked in some way, but if anything those links just provide further evidence for evolution.
7th75thCallaghan 6 months ago
@jiminiflix 5. All things become more ordered over time, not less ordered, as show the laws of entropy, life in that sense is disorder. 7. Why must something be eternal? This is merely a subjective hope and nothing that anyone can prove. 7. More than dozens my friend, but as someone who has no respect for science you couldn't hope to understand this subject. Again, it signifies nothing. 8. You have obviously been grossly misled on this subject, to a disturbing extent, perhaps read another book?
7th75thCallaghan 6 months ago
@jiminiflix I really think you just lie to people, and it is disgusting. Richard Dawkins is no guru, he is a popular science writer, he has never once admitted any notion of intelligent design, which is not scientific or a theory anyway, it is creationism with a new name. You should study the philosophy of logic and reason to better comprehend this subject. The Christian perception of the world is infinitely simple compared to what science offers, you don't know, as you haven't studied it.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@jiminiflix You really are out of your depth. If you want to argue with me, then first you should perhaps educate yourself to an acceptable level, I recommend to study genetics, in particular human genetics, at university level. After that go study theology and in particular the History of Christianity and the history of the bible, not in church but in a serious establishment, a critical reading. I recommend the Yale course. Until then, all of this will be way over your head.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan 9. Human is Body soul and spirit. Chemicals alone cannot account for self awareness. 10.Language separates man from animals 11. Asexual reproduction: complimentary evolution of male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination and mathematical posibility.12.God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. History, chronology, biology and reproduction proves we came from a man/ woman .
jiminiflix 6 months ago
@jiminiflix 9. Don't waste our time with that arbitrary nonsense. 10. Evolution of language can be seen in animals. 11. It might defy your imagination, and the mathematics that you know, but don't assume such things about everyone else. 12. God did not say such, various men claimed that someone that we commonly refer to as 'God' told them, and the 'God' that supposedly speaks to each one is schizophrenic, according to the behaviour changes. That text was then heavily modified according to need.
7th75thCallaghan 6 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan It s easy to call other less intellectual than you evolution believers becaue WE don't know science, therefore we are a lazy, religious majority. Oh man you just go on believing its scientific we all came from an assumed explosion, that every element come from hydrogen and all life evolved from rocks. You just believe its possible for cells to evolve form a perfect chemical soup and that your ancesters lived off NO FOOD. Go on believing that life mutates and IMPROVES! LOL!
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@jiminiflix Yes, it is easy, and yes, it is justified considering you don't know science, yet there are so many resources out there to learn from. From what you have said, you clearly don't understand the theories that you are talking about. No one suggested that all life 'evolved from rocks'. I don't want to legitimise your childish nonsense with a proper answer, but I would like to point you in the right direction. At least let me discredit some of the particularly bad misunderstandings...
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@jiminiflix firstly, evolution and the big bang are two seperate ideas, we aren't discussing the big bang here, but the existence of life on earth. Evolution does not suggest that cells 'evolve' from a chemical soup, I suggest you read a book. It only suggests that amino acids do, this isn't evolution, you do not understand how to use the word. They had food, you think a plant needs a steak every night to live? For some organisms, oxygen, chemicals, even oil and metal can provide the energy they
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@jiminiflix need to survive. So don't go saying that as if it were a point unless you want to be laughed at by anyone intelligent. Also, you seem to think that life 'improves' through evolution, this is not the case, and the theory clearly refutes that. Mutation only provides the -possibility- for evolution, so long as the corresponding selection pressure is applied and that mutant gene is selected for, causing its instance in the gene pool to increase. If by improving you mean an increase in
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@jiminiflix complexity, this comes about by a very simple form of mutation (which Christians still refuse to even try to understand in their blind faith) called an addition mutation. It is all beautifully simple and logical once you have taken the time to understand it, and in my experience, the simplest answers are often the truest. The creationist belief of 'then it happened' is not simple, its simply illogical, big difference. Read. A. Fucking. Book. And. Stop. Wasting. My. Time. Thanks.
7th75thCallaghan 7 months ago
@jiminiflix
Some people (you) are just stupid, ignorant or stubborn and will never see the light. Science will win in the end, because it works. Those of us who have unhinged ourselves from the shackles of indoctrination are free. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere" ~ Voltaire
Reaperlastfm 6 months ago
@Reaperlastfm Could anyone be more indoctrinated than you self? Is not science now your very conscience? Science plays an important role, but science is not 100% in agreement with evolution Reaperlastfm. You call me stupid for disbelieving the faith of the "establishment". Must I be another one of the crowd following zombies? Is not the very nature of science to question and debate? Evolution as I see it is wanting to fill the grand canyon with only a spatula of plaster.
jiminiflix 6 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan ITS ALL LIES! :D
millball 2 months ago
You may be the cousin of a cow mate but I am not...science is not evolution and evolution is not science. Your level of morals is very low and I suppose you could logically explain away any moral law, even that mans need of law and morals is what separates us from animals. We are all made in Gods image and by Gods law which is the definative standard for moral right and wrong is what all will be judged under. We have all broken the 10 commandments and so we all need a redeemer in Christ Jesus.
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix Evolution is an observed fact. There's no controversy within science, only between religion and the classroom.
Do you have any evidence that your God ( I assume it's the Christian God ) created you in their image?
I have never murdered anyone, used God's name in vain, worshipped another God or committed adultery.
And that's with my own moral judgement, which is better than the God in the Bible's.
Excluding that I've never used God's name in vain, I've other words to express disgust
xTheFBP 8 months ago 7
@xTheFBP I agree with everything you said passed the first line. There is TONS of controversy in science. The difference between the controversy between science, religeon and the classroom is that in a scientific controversy both sides are trying to find the truth given the facts instead of their beliefs and eirther side will happily give up their argument if sufficient evidence is provided for one argument over another. Religin however disgregards evidence in favor of belief. Which is bs.
Draidis 2 months ago
Yoy suck !
neolegionar 10 months ago
"Scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of his thoughts and make him more than ever contemptuous of such knowledge as he did not possess."
-Eric Arthur Blair
Heurvert 10 months ago
@Heurvert As much as I respect Orwell I think that one is horseshit.. Why would scientific education cause people to lose interest in literature? In history? If anything I think that education expands the mind and nourishes artistic-ness, haha... In any case I guess we're lucky that many people aren't smart enough to be scientists
PhantomGanon1 10 months ago
@PhantomGanon1 I think you misunderstood the meaning of the quote. What 'Orwell' meant is that scientific education shouldn't be increased by adding more facts to learn, it needs to be increased by adding more curiosity and fascination for your surroundings as well as a higher respect for the way science enriches our lives.
BaileysBeads 10 months ago
@PhantomGanon1 Then again, now I've read his quote again Orwell probably just friggin hated exact science.
BaileysBeads 10 months ago
While you're at the whole compassion for illusory, organic bullshit thing, you should also learn to respect animals because society deems them to be terribly cute and worthy of compassion for some unexplained mystery reason.
PrimeConsciousness 10 months ago
C'mon you guys, just sacrifice your own will for the will of your fellow dust beings. My dusty, lusty emotions and feelings are important to you because...uh well...Because I'm the same species or whatever. You can also go to jail if you don't respect my dusty, lusty dross being as well. Love the dirt or else!
PrimeConsciousness 10 months ago
Piece of crap obnoxious Illuminist says that torture is necessary? Tell us what you know about the "Doomsday Bomb" you evil disgusting excuse for a human being! Cough, Cough!
NeoLeafProductions 11 months ago
He has a point, but it draws on practical reasoning that may discard certain outcomes. Why would someone consider a human embryo worth keeping and not a chimpanzee? the answer may be because while the embryo is not a fully developed human, killing it will prevent the opportunity for it to become one. Utilitarian and scientific thought isn't bad but it lacks sometimes a sense of humanity.
Sibbot 11 months ago
Comment removed
Sibbot 11 months ago
Comment removed
Sibbot 11 months ago
I'm still convinced that if somehow a real asshole (sphincter and all) could be made to speak with an eloquent British accent it could sell books to the average YT atheist.
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
Dawkins has made a religion out of atheism. He believes in the soul. Try this: Daniel Dennett - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews at 3:50 Dawkins say: "a soul can emerge from soulless neurons "; that is theology at it's worst. The neo-Lamarkism selfish gene theory requires a leap of Faith bigger the Holy Trinity. I though atheists were on the evidence required side of the fence if you want to come to the Faith side please do it through the front door. Accept God. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx By "soul", he merely means consciousness.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 Yes, I know, many people define soul as conciousness. Is a matter of semantics. No matter how you define it, natural selection don't have an explanation for soul/conciousness or a self programing brain. Dawkins tried to explain it with a bogus theory but has found no proof in the las 34 yrs. God Bless
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Either way, we know that our consciousness exists, and if you know this is all he refers to by using "soul", you must admit that saying "He believes in the soul" is misleading--to put it mildly. I, myself, wouldn't call it a soul, precisely because of its mystical connotation; but I'm not here to debate any of these points, just making sure his words are accurately represented, and not maliciously misconstrued.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 Have you look at the video? I don't use the word soul, Dawkins does. He could have very well used conciousness, he had interviewed Depak Chopra and others like, he knows exactly what he was doing when he said that the soul can come from souless neurons, he is recruiting, he is on a mission. Don't be fooled, open your eyes. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Believing in the soul does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. While I doubt he is a spiritual person, I know of many people who are spiritual but not religious. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Decivre 11 months ago
@Decivre ""I know of many people who are spiritual but not religious."" Yes, but Dawkins is neither. He's in an active campaing to eliminate hope from people's lives, would you call that good or evil? He's using science as an excuse, without presenting scientific evidence for his claims, good or evil?. He blatantly disrespects God, good or evil? He disrespects people by disrespecting their beliefs and comparing them to fairy tales, good or evil? I can go on and on, but I hope you got the idea.
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
@dejesusluisx He is not trying to eliminate hope, he is trying to show people how to hope without putting faith in unproven claims. Not quite sure what you mean by using science as an excuse...how is it an excuse when it gives us all of the reliable knowledge we know? He disrespects God...how can you do that when it hasn't been proven god exists? Would you tell an adult that santa wasn't real? Why don't you just respect them?? He's a beacon for common sense, which the world needs more of.
echalko 11 months ago
@echalko ""how to hope without putting faith in unproven claims"' How to hope what? Atheists have nothing to hope. That we get flying cars?, that we can fit an I phone in our brains? what kind of hope materialism can bring? ""using science as an excuse"" for selling books about atheism when science has nothing to do with religion, they belong to different realms. ""it hasn't been proven god exists"" Not to you but to me indeed, and to millions of others. "a beacon for common sense" try for evil
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
@dejesusluisx Ad hominem attacks again I see. God has been "proven" to you and to millions of others. That's fantastic. Then why hasn't he been proven to me yet? Before you say that he has and that I just refuse to accept it, I was a believer once and even thought I might grow up to be a priest. Then rationality kicked in, and I realized I couldn't force myself to believe this stuff. Religion provides a cover for ANY evil action to be done in its name, so how does atheism promote evil?
echalko 11 months ago
@echalko ""Ad hominem attacks again I see"" To whom? saying atheism doesn't have a goal for manking is not ad hominem, is a fact. ""why hasn't he been proven to me"" ""rationality kicked in"" You can only find what you're looking for, if you stop looking and rejected Him, there is no way you'll get any proof. Can I ask what religion you were? I got my proof and countless other people I know. You didn't get yours because you were not trully convinced.
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
@dejesusluisx The fact that you claim that atheists have nothing to hope for shows that you have an inadequate understanding of what an atheist is. I have plenty of things in this world that make me happy, and plenty of things to hope for. God is not necessary for those things to be.
And you are correct. Secular people do not believe they have an inherent goal. However, being able to decide my own destiny is probably the greatest part of being alive. I alone choose my goals, and no one else.
Decivre 11 months ago
@Decivre "make me happy" what about a common goal for mankind?, "me", forgive me if I'm rude, is selfish. "'I alone choose my goals, and no one else."" Have you actually given a serious thought to the consequences that way of thinking can have in mankind? With each new generation morality will drift a little, until in a few generations morality as we know it today won't exist. Your goals aren't the same as a greedy politician or a lazy person wanting to live of the system. Not all think like u.
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
@dejesusluisx You presume that positive progress for the whole of mankind isn't something that makes me happy. It does. Furthermore, everyone already does work under the idea that they alone choose their goals. No one ever flips a coin or demands someone else pick their future career; they do so themselves. You just don't admit you prescribe to the same thing.
The problem here is that you seem to work with the first presumption that all or most people are inherently evil, when I would disagree.
Decivre 11 months ago
@Decivre ""positive progress for the whole of mankind isn't something that makes me happy"" It feel good about progress, but if manking ONLY think about progress, we are doomed. ""everyone already does work under the idea that they alone choose their goals"" also true, but I'm not talking about personal goals I'm talking about a goal we all can share as humans. Every true believer wants to behave like Jesus, to be pure, right, we all aspire to sainthood. Continue...
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
@Decivre ... Immagine if all of a sudden, all believers in the world find there is no hope and no eternal life, that is just everyone for thenselves. That will be a lot of people wanting to be the first in everything. Selfishness, vanity, greed, infidelity, homosexuality, anger, lies, deceit, manipulating and using people for your own benefit, there are no laws against any of them, the only thing keeping all mankind in turning into all that mud is that little voice in 80% of the population.
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
@Decivre ""The problem here is that you seem to work with the first presumption that all or most people are inherently evil, when I would disagree."' Yes, people are iherently evil. Do you believe in evolution? Didn't we evolved from animals, well then we are inherently evil. Is in our genes, is our animal instinct what we call evil. Think about it, all the evil things I mentioned before plus killing, rapes, robbery, all are animal instincs in ourselves. God is the source of all good.
dejesusluisx 11 months ago
The science of moralities in mankind only dwells in the very souls of humanity as in love, hate, envy, pity, sympathy, empathy, hope and faith. Without the scientific study of the spirit in which these things only manifest from; science can't pretend to have any answers because the question of where these things are derived from and dwell from has never been studied. A universe and life without intent is the only science we study today.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
Science is not a place where the assumed necessity or not of moralities can be debated, God or not. There is no science in morality because is a sub-set of philosophy and not a scientific study. Knowledge of good/evil's existence is only in philosophy/religion. Philosophy & humanities are the very same wants in human desires as in religion for a meaningful life. All Atheist if honest in science alone should reject all morality the same as religion and any philosophy as only opinion.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
Wow, I think I actually agree with Dawkins for once.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
4:04
ENGLISHBL0KE 1 year ago
doesn't any moral issue ultimately come down to quantifiable causal effects? in fact, doesn't everything in the universe? how is that not science?
neomp5 1 year ago
Sam Harris makes a great case for a science of morality in his new book
DrInfidel 1 year ago
@DrInfidel
i was quite suprised by that. i've said for years that science is a basis for objective, nonrelativistic morality, that newton's third law of motion is the only commandment one need live by. but i found sam harris' view on islam utterly objectionable and disgusting. that he would write a book on a subject i've spent so much time on, and which so few others have dared to venture near, suprised me a lot. i have yet to read the book, however.
neomp5 1 year ago
@DrInfidel
The "science" of morality is not new. Human beings have been trying to control what humans "ought" to do for thousands of years. Some of these methods have been very scientific. The problem remains that they were largely wrong in a moral sense. If there is anything that science can contribute to morality, it is a very thorough and precise understanding of just exactly what a human being is. We don't have such a thing, so science is not going to do much good.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision What Harris argues is that facts about morality reduce to facts about human well-being. And facts about human well-being are in the domain of science (biology, chemistry, sociology, economics, etc.). Just like what we ought to do in medicine reduces to facts about human physical health. No body is trying to control anything, but if one strives for well-being there is no doubt that there are right and wrong answer of doing that.
DrInfidel 1 year ago
@DrInfidel
If well-being is the assumption we choose to start with, or the goal we wish to achieve, than I think science can weigh in. But science is reductionistic. Anything having to do with human beings must be approached on the whole. That is a huge problem for philosophers. Science is not sophisticated enough, at least not yet. Our technology is very developed, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the science behind it is properly and fully understood.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision That's exactly what Sam Harris argues. Although science doesn't have all the answers yet (and may never find answers to certain questions) that shouldn't stop us from asserting that there ARE facts to be know about human well being and therefore about morality.
DrInfidel 1 year ago
@DrInfidel
I will read more of what Sam has to say, it sounds pretty level headed and practical
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
No one can claim some reasoning in an obligation to follow any moralities as a value system via science nor can natural selection and equality coincide, to except one is to reject the other. How can evolution bring a value of moralities and equality in mankind via natural selection, a non-equality process? How can such evolutionary process create such a notion by random chance then have some claim as to an obligation to follow such feelings in moralities by only existing by dumb luck?
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Evolutionary origin of morality:
- forming societies is beneficial to our survival, this is why values that allow us to form stable societies are hardcoded into our DNA
- our morality is the conflict between what benefits the individual and what allows us to form stable societies.
it's not a matter of chance, it's not a matter of luck.become educated on the subject before saying something so stupid.
types10000 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Nice. The good news is that evolution in the way you describe it is not science. It's 19th century materialist philosophy. The way life propagates itself is a separate issue from how life forms should behave. Understanding the material processes behind life can't in and of itself be the understanding required to make judgments about the needs, wants, desires, and actions of living things. Science can only help us better define things physically. Science can help, not answer.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
There is no "should behave" in regard to good/evil in nature or norm in behavior in actions within freewill of mankind. Only philosophy, religion or God makes such limits. Without a God there is no evil, just capability. Propagation via rape in mankind has no right or wrong in the theory of evolution or it's process, it just works or don't work. There is no moral rights and wrongs in the science of life, just can and cant's. No such thing as science in or of humanities.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
I agree. But that doesn't mean that what we observe about the world through science can't help us make better moral decisions. But I think there is a hidden agenda here to try and rid the world of philosophical and religious thought, having science pose as the answer. It just means that we need something better, more whole, in order to deal with humanity. We can deal with the animal, or the organ, or this or that, but as you said, there is no such thing as a science of humanities.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
I agree, all want a meaning to ones life and a reason for it, science fails at this thus far. Atheists knowing that philosophy and religion in moralities are sown from the same cloth can only look for true meaning in science. The soul is the real you that you know exists beyond your physical body. The you that knows you are alive and an individual whether a twin or not. The soul is your self awareness and the only place where love, hate, envy, sympathy and emotion is real.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Science has become the means by which human beings manipulate nature in order to produce technology. Unfortunately, the technology we possess is nothing like the universe itself, it just mimics the fundamental processes that allow it to "work". It will never explain why nature is the way it is because science has no respect for nature, it is completely indifferent. The moral problem comes before the scientific problem. Just as the soul comes before the manifestation of the body.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
this video just made me wonder what human meat taste like...
lasalle1alpha 1 year ago
@lasalle1alpha Its delicious! Try it with some fava beans and a nice chianti! Fffffffffffffffffph!
dkthg 1 year ago
@lasalle1alpha
pork, most likely.
neomp5 1 year ago
This guy is predictable, and not very interesting.
nateshannon 1 year ago
By the way is it me or are they putting a little too much rouge on the old drunk geezer.
MrAssbaron 1 year ago
Where does morality come from if not religion. Morality does not exist without religious guidance. The devils greatest accomplishment was to make people believe in no god. I was born in Pakistan where so many people see devils at night it is a norm. You can hear them teasing animals at night.
ifystube 1 year ago
@ifystube Has anyone taken pictures of these devils that so many people claim to see? How about film? If they are so prevalent it should be possible for scientists to investigate them and find out what they look like and what they are, their physiology etc. Or are they like vampires, and don't show up on film? If so, it should be possible to capture on film their effects - animals would be seen being tormented by something invisible. Why has no-one investigated this claim?
Because it's not true
janai1 1 year ago
@janai1
Think about it. Jinn and devils are hidden from humans especially non religious people as a test from God. If devils were visible there would be irrefutable proof for the existence of Allah, it would be more obvious than "fire is hot". Also, science has not advanced enough to prove such beings. Modern science has proved more than 80% of the Quran which was written more than 14 centuries ago E.g. sexes of plants, water cycle, big bang, the sun spins on its own axis and the list goes on
ifystube 1 year ago