JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
I agree with *everything* you said. No, one does not need "hatred or any kind of phobia to see" those differences...one only needs bigotry to do that, of which you seem to have a LOT! ROFL!!!
Of course Dawkins knew Douglas Adams due to Dr Who. His wife, Lalla Ward, was Tom Bakers assistant in the seventies and was friends with Adams who was the programmes script editor.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
ENERGY never dies, is eternal and cannot be created. So before our universe of matter formed from Energy the Energy always existed Eternally and Infinitely, then the energy formed matter, matter in motion produces space and time. I completly agree with the scientific evedience backing this like relativity, Conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. I call that Energy that becomes matter God, thats why I see God in everything, or as you might say: I see energy in everything. : )
@rovpilot1 no, scientists work for their answers, they come up with double blind trials, and strict experimental procedures, they make life harder for themselves and then have their work peer reviewed. Pope Benedict XVI claims that he is infallible and speaks the word of god....as do all other priests. Scientists admit on a daily basis they don't understand it all, otherwise their occupation would be redundant.
"Dawkins is the perfect example of how ignorant scientists are, they see themselves as the ones who understand it all and others don't."
- Inferiority complex much?
...and until you acquire the achievements Dawkins has achieved, really you're just another irrelevant hater. Seriously jealousy has no positive inclination to society.
I grew up on the Hitchhiker's books and I still have my set, autographed by Douglas Adams when he came by my University to promote "Mostly Harmless." We miss his genius!
Many answers to the meaning of life are to be found in the 42 chapters of ' The reason driven life' by Master of the Bibleverse Robert M Price. This package can uninstall viral ciphertext by giving questions that show what ideas are not the answers. Your software may be upgraded from kb superstition systems by recognizing ancient text messages as superfiction. C2 author Victor J Stenger. Travel with these guides to a 21C Gb Galaxy vision. May the force of their sceptical logic be with you.
@zytigon "It isn't rocket science to defend your family from murder,rape,theft"
Unless its the god telling the Israelites to murder, rape and thieve lands in the old testiment. God broke so many of those himself its difficult to take those pius oh so holy big 10 seriously and as you say its not rocket science to say dont murder. I mean if that god practised what he preachesfrom the start we would have all been Jainists.
@MsOneiroi77 God violates neither His commandments by using the Israelites to bring justice to those who rebelled against Him; nor by punishing those of His creation who choose to reject His law. He does not violate His commandments by using the infinite sacrifice of His son to atone for some of those who broke His law, but He is not required to place the violations of all people on His son.
@colorado4815162342 "God violates neither His commandments by using the Israelites to bring justice to those who rebelled against Him"
I would like you to actually explain that rather than just stating it. Because thou shalt not kill is one of the big ten on his list and a murder in his name is still murder by any other name.
@MsOneiroi77 In Genesis 9:5-6 God placed a high value on bearers of his image. In Romans 13 it is stated that God established the government in part to kill those men who kill other men for no good reason. You must be specific if you want to discuss a particular incident as it may have been unwarranted murder quite outside of God's orders, and subsequently deserving the punishment of death.
The continued existence of atheism strongly suggests the method outlined does not work.
Without even having viewed it, I feel comfortable in asserting that if I do watch it, I will either feel insulted or amused, and my opinion of believers will drop.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Royal Institution Christmas Lecture 1991, Growing Up in the Universe. How brilliant that all, nearly 5 hours, of it are available on here. I love the fact that Douglas attended.
Thank you to Douglas Adams!!! I have read, and re-read, his books so many times I can quote passages from memory. I hope I get to meet him on the other side.
@peterpotpie I certainly don't hope you will, for if there were an "other side", our dear Douglas would be quite occupied burning for eternity in it... for not having faith. More importantly; so would I!
@mynameisauk With death comes greater recognition and comments about wishing the dead person was still alive. Energy doesn't dissipate - death is the next best promotion tool to being sampled in a hit song. Douglas is still making a difference.
@tayloreh agreed, it was after adams death when I noticed how universally awesome the guide is, --considering i'm 17 that's perfectly normal-- but still.. what could he produce, who knows?
This from a guy (RD) apparently concerned and indignant about religion being taught in the Science Classroom! The irony and double standard is astounding. Not the first time he has done it either.
I am not a Christian nor a fan of the Bible either (so have no bias there), but I am a teacher. The man is nolonger interested in pure science he has a worldview to sell, and children are clearly good customers.
@allan3141 that someone doesnt want children to be brainwashed by a particular religion by having it taught to them as truth in a science classroom, makes them have a double standard? im lost.
@volound seriously it should not be possible to construe what you wrote here from what I wrote. Richard has a worldview (it is nested in Philosophical Naturalism/Materialism) and he holds to it 'firmly,' and it functions as a religion for him (as even Ruse concedes) and it is it that he is pushing here to the kids, not Science. I have seen him do it elsewhere too even more overtly!
@allan3141 saying that philosophical naturalism functions as a religion is just utter tripe. that makes no sense.
saying to children "there are thousands of different religions and they all require faith in lieu of evidence, and therefore faith is not a pathway to truth" is the humane thing to do.
science is BY DEFINITION locked in the realm of the natural i.e. what is REAL. to abide by the scientific method is to be a naturalist. to teach science is to be "pushing" naturalism.
@volound "just utter tripe" Michael Ruse has write extensively on this matter, perhaps you should appraise that material. After all; others, effectively on your side, and others, on effectively my side, also think this to be the case. And irony of ironies so did the founders of The Modern Synthesis (a very major kingpin of your worldview no doubt)!
So your bare assertion, coupled with your all too apparent glib familiarity with the issues at hand are not going to wash here I am afraid.
@allan3141 is that your stock comment for when you cant be bothered/arent able to address the actual comment at hand?
i have appraised that material. michael ruse is at the centre of the evolution/intelligent design debate. his works are all within that context. richard dawkins, isnt, and so none of this applies.
i maintain that it is indeed utter tripe. atheism is to religion as bald is to a hair colour, or non-stamp collecting is to a hobby. apples and oranges. utter tripe.
@vol "stock comment"! What stock comment? "I have appraised that material. Michael Ruse is at the centre of the evolution/intelligent design debate. His works are all within that context. Richard Dawkins’, isn’t, and so none of this applies." Facepalm cubed, seriously facepalm, facepalm and FACEPALM again. Are you being serious here? "non-stamp collecting" but you keep presenting 'stamps' a plenty! But sincerely believe you are not, is it actually funny, but a shame you are blind to the joke.
@allan3141 saying "atheism is like a religion" is just a glaring category error. more typical of a religious simpleton who is grasping at straws at the end of a losing debate, than an atheist. its kindergarten apologetics at its most ignorant and disingenuous. atheism is quite simply a position on a claim, that claim being of a gods existence, and that position being of disbelief.
if dawkins has any worldview to sell to children, it is that of skepticism, from which his atheism is derived.
@volound dude if "skepticism" is the metric we are valuing here, then I am leaving you standing in my wake!
Might I suggest you read "The Evolutionary View" by Julian Huxley (no less!) You really should be more familiar with the works of your Gurus and the Founding Father's of your faith.
@allan3141 ive probably already read all the books you could name on the subject.
and i dont have "faith" in anything. i have reasonable expectations based on evidence and reasoned logic. if you can name something in which i have faith.. guess what ill do.. ill stop believing it.
on a side note: im not sure if youve been told before, but your style of rhetoric is pointlessly condescending, patronising and verbose.
also, i like how you ignored the top 80% of my last comment.
@volound "there are thousands of different religions and they all require faith in lieu of evidence, and therefore faith is not a pathway to truth;" this in the Science Classroom? Right! And any counter or more nuanced view should be prohibited? Ummm..."beware the sound of one hand clapping"!
"to teach science is to be 'pushing' naturalism." If you say so, no but seriously!
no. thats not science. but that was also not an assertion. that faith goes no way towards distinguishing false religions from true ones is demonstrable. maybe one day when supernatural claims are falsifiable, the uselessness of faith can be empirically shown.
"If you say so, no but seriously!"
give me any one example of the scientific method being successfully applied to the supernatural i.e. that which transcends the natural.
@allan3141 You're a teacher and you can't tell the difference between teaching kids to enjoy fiction and teaching kids that ancient mythology is revealed truth?
I was following along in my copy of "Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (the second book in the series of "Hitchhiker's Guide", chapter 17) and discovered he was paraphrasing quite a bit.
If there is no God, there can be no wrong. The values of the individual will conflict with that of the group. Calling whatever the group does not agree with "wrong" would be non - absolute.
If there was no absolute wrong, eating a mammal would not be wrong either.
@kablamo9999 4 There is but one only, the living and true God. The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, and is alone able fully to persuade men that it is the very Word of God.
9There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.
I swiped these from the Westminster Larger Catechism.
@colorado4815162342 There certainly can. Whether atheist or religious, there are many things people will always agree are wrong and right- murder, rape, theft, arson; these are all things anyone will agree is NOT all right to put your fellow man through. Moral does not come from god, it comes from human instinct and construction.
@Greatkingrat88 they are not objectively wrong. torture is not objectively wrong. right/wrong, justice, good, evil etc are all human constructs.
although i do not like torture and do not torture people because i do not want to be tortured, torture is not objectively wrong. morality is purely subjective.
@Greatkingrat88 The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. The sixth commandment states that murder is wrong. The seventh commandment states that rape is wrong. The eighth commandment states that theft and arson are wrong. These commandments are rational instructions God gave to all men in real space time to obey. -WLC #98
@colorado4815162342 If all moral really DID come from some supernatural, almighty yet unprovable entity, then anyone who did not believe in him would logically lack that moral compass.
However, atheists, or anyone non-christian, are no more prone to violence, rape or murder than a christian. Moral comes from US, a superstitious invention to help answer questions we did not have the answers to.
Randomness does noit make order indeed. Good thing it is not created randomly at all.
@Greatkingrat88 Morality can only exist if it is an absolute standard. If morality must be applicable to all to be objectvie, It must be apart of the order of the entire universe. If you are going to claim that order in our universe was produced by "pan dimensional beings who caused the big bang and seeded the earth with life"; What is God but a pan dimensional being? We have the word of God, to be analyzed, and read objectively. What is evolution, but random genetic mutations?
@colorado4815162342 I never once claimed it was the work of a "pan-dimensional being". Intelligent design is not something I support; it is just christianity in sheep's clothing.
There's nothing "random" about natural selection. On the contrary, the best gene material survives BECAUSE it is best suited for survival. There is order, but nothing indicates a higher order made it happen.
And would you kindly respond to my argument that faith is no factor when it comes to heninous crimes?
@Greatkingrat88 Both speakers in this video believe that "pan dimensional beings caused the big bang and seeded the earth with life", Have you not read the Hitch hiker's Guide to The Galaxy?
Knowledge is essential to Biblical faith. Biblical faith is not a leap into non reason. Biblical faith is when an individual, relies on the objective reality of the work, person, and office of Jesus Christ, that occurred in real space and time, to secure his salvation from the second death, or hell.
@Greatkingrat88 You cannot have a rational universe without a prime mover. You cannot have something from nothing. God created into nothing, not out of nothing.
And yet, this "God" remains utterly impossible to prove with rational means or scientific method, and his methods, if his book is to be believed, are rather horrible.
@colorado4815162342 Just because we do not know the answer to that question isn't a good reason to believe in an irrational, supernatural, unprovable and quite evil being.
@Greatkingrat88 Your philosophical system has no objective standard to judge any action or person as evil. Your system consists of the emotions of your and others' brains. Your emotions are neither rational, nor objective. Your only choice to regain morality is, to consciously or unconsciously, revert to the moral coding implanted within you. Otherwise you have no standard to judge anyone for anything. The choice is yours. Objective moral standards; or irrational fluctuating emotions.
@colorado4815162342 Well to begin with: a religious moral system is indeed only valid if there actually exists the specific god one holds to be the "objective" moral judge of all humanity. If we can't concede with confidence that this being actually exists, by observing the evidence and or arguments in favor of it, it soon becomes obvious that the moral is not valid. In my opinion no such conclusive evidence has been presented.
However, this is only the beginning of the problems.
@Greatkingrat88 I do not need your assent to create God's existence. No one can create God. God exists independent of you, me, and the rest of humanity. If we needed common consent to prove God's existence, least ways based on evidence other than the Bible, "God" would probably be only an amplification of humanity, rather than the creator of humanity. God is not a communal imagined idea.
You have presented assumptions. You have presented no evidence.
No, @Clamtrox, an individual's knowledge of a [fictional] creature who poses as a god, is not the same as that individual's assent to its existence or title. Adams bestows the title of "God" on creatures in his book. The God who is, holds his own title, "The first and The last." No one can give it to him.
What am I trying to say? Knowledge of a creature who poses as a god is a straw argument for the non-existence of the God who is, was, and is to come. See I Corinthians 10 and Revelation 1:8.
@xDarkBloodAngelx You cannot have something from nothing. You can have something created into nothing. That is creation. Your conclusion of "God's creator" is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the premises presented.
@colorado4815162342 Try listening to C. Hitchens Youtube critique on 10 commandments or DanBarker, J. W Loftus, G. Greenberg. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein says there is scant evidence for O.T. stories. There are 3 sets of 10Cs in O.T. the only ones officially called 10Cs Exodus 34v28. v26 says 10th C - "Do not boil kid goat in it's mothers milk"? What kind of god would want animal or human sacrifice- an imaginary one. It isn't rocket science to defend your family from murder,rape,theft
Very amusing, but what does it show about reality? Anyone knowing ecology knows that each species IS there for the sake of the whole ecosystem. So Dawkins belittling the girl's keen insight that flowers are there for the sake of bees (& bees for the sake of flowers), is just bad biology. It shows the fundamental irrationality of Dawkins, who is willing to ignore what he should know for the sake of making an atheological point. Sad. Peace, DP
@dfpolis no, they serve the ecosystem, but that's not why they exist and doesn't explain how they came into existence either... that's the point he's trying to make
@PaladinswordSaurfang "Ecosystem" is a human abstract concept. The reality is the individual organisms and their interactions. Organisms serve a reality - other organisms - not an abstraction. I do not dispute the how of evolution. I am saying that there is more to be seen by those open enough to look - not just the how, but the why. Devotees of the naturalist faith have a dogma against purposes. The rest of us can look at the data as I do in my videos #17-#20. Peace, DP
@dfpolis I believe you are quite right. Ecosystems are linked and the progress of one system can be dependant on another. In fact I agree that, instead of belittling the little girl, Dawkins should have appreciated the fact that, whilst the function of the flower is to survive and re produce, as with the bee, she was not wrong to suggest that an evolutionary dependancy that flower and bees have on each other is part of their mutual success and continued existence of their respective species.
No dude; nothing in nature is there for the sake of anything else other than itself. Because there is a cooperative relationship between the bees and the flowers doesn't mean they're there for the sake of each-other. And the little girl said more specifically "for the bees, so that they can make honey for us". That's an anthropocentric point of view. She's not fitting the flowers into the context of its ecological function, she's looking at how they're useful to US.
@WSWarthog It means that they co-evolved and are interdependent. The whole ecosystem is interdependent, directly or indirectly. We are one of the organisms using honey as an energy source. What do you think being for the sake of means? A being for the sake of B means that B benefits from A. So, what, precisely is the problem you see? I am not saying the little girl is a systems ecologist, only that the relation she saw is real.
"It means that they co-evolved and are interdependent" - yes but when you use terms like "for the sake of" you're implying some intentional motivation behind their relationship rather than happenstance convenience.
"A being for the sake of B means that B benefits from A."
I don't agree. I might drop my wallet by accident and a hobo might pick it up. He benefits from the event, but that isn't to say that losing money is a process for the sake of hobos.
@WSWarthog Intent is clear in the data. Wallace, evolution's cofounder saw its "mind action." The laws of nature, aka natural selection, are intentional. (my video #14). They meet Brentano's criterion of intentionality & their genus's only other species is human commitments. Dawkins argues evolution overcomes improbability by guidance (#16, #17). It has target forms (#17, #19). Evo-devo shows means prepared in advance (#18) of ends. One instance is not a pattern. An MO shows intent. Peace, DP
@WSWarthog I am not doing yes it is, not it is not with you. If you wish to criticize my positions, comment on my videos or on my paper "Mind or Randomness in Evolution" xianphil.org/Intent_evol.htm. Peace, DP
@dfpolis and this from a guy (RD) apparently concerned and indignant about religion being taught in the Science Classroom! The irony and double standard is astounding. Not the first time he has done it either.
I am not a Christian nor a fan of the Bible either (so have no bias there), but I am a teacher. The man is nolonger interested in pure science he has a worldview to sell, and children are clearly good customers.
So great seeing 2 of my favorite guys right there together! (Going to go see you in Highgate next time I go to London, Douglas!) The important thing to remember is that we humans (all history, all physical bits aside) have the power of CHOICE.
So great seeing 2 of my favorite guys right there together! (Going to go see you in Highgate next time I go to London, Douglas!) The important thing to remember is that we humans (all history, all physical bits aside) have the power of CHOICE.
roac7777; You wear unnatural fibers.. eat shellfish... eat pork... those are acts clearly condemned by god, yet you ignore those edits, only to dwell on ONE single condemnation
@Kornknealious So what if I wear man made fibres, eat shellfish. Where does it say you shouldnt. Fuck you and your god. I will not be told by any human what to eat or what to wear, let alone his sadist, mass murdering, infant killing, homophobic, gynaephobic, capricious man made god.
@Kornknealious Idiot, fuck you and your man made god. No one tells me what I should wear and eat, least of all his or her, non existent, celestial tyrant.
The cow is our our mother-she supplies milk as a mother. So killing a cow is like killing your mother-not recommended for an "evolved" human. Go vegetarian/vegan.
@tommbarton24 Mothers supply milk, cows supply milk therefore cow is a mother in that sense.A cow is always a mother but a mother is not always a cow!
@nandanugent Last I checked the requirement for being a mother was having children. In which case, chickens and fish are also mothers. Anyway, to suggest that eating meat is not for "evolved humans" is funny considering that we've been eating meat for the most recent thousands if not millions of years in our evolutionary process.
@tommbarton24 Who are the "we" you refer to? Do you mean Neanderthals? There are different types of humans some less evolved than others, the less evolved seem to die off early. Vegetarians generally have a longer life span and IQ than the norm, as well as better physique and better skin etc.The anatomy of a human is closer to that of a herbivore, long intestine, no claws, perspires through skin, no sharp front teeth/has molars and stomach acid 20 times less strong than animal carnivores.
@sarojinius animals including us cannot be more evolved than others by definition! A lifeform is only evolved for its environment, if the lifeform is fitted (fittest) to its environment it will thrive, if not, or if the environment changes it will die out or evolve depending on the circumstances!
@sarojinius Humans are omnivores, our intesinile tract is virtually identical to that of a pig, (also an omnivore), and very different to the 4 stomached ruminants such as cows and sheep.
The fact that humans perspire is an evolutionary adaptation that enables a uniquely human type of hunting; ie: the persistance hunt - watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo
The claim that vegitarians are smarter and live longer is just ego boosting nonsense that vegitarians tell themselves.
@tommbarton24 The key word here is evolved-not primitive forms from millions of years ago who existed at the beginning of the process of evolution. Evolution means change not stasis right?
I like Dawkins now, but know when I was a kid, these kinds of demonstrations always bored me. Makes me wonder if there could somehow be a good middle to strike when it comes to 'edutainment'.
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
@skaribou God wants us to be His children and heirs of his Kingdom, he wants to be in us and around us and not the next to or somewhere far away, wants to be with us not only spiritually but already here on earth also physically through His body and blood in the Eucharist of the Church. A living God in sacrament of the Catholic Church as was foretold and promised by Jesus Christ Himself in the Bible
@yatter1 ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
@JezusSlave Those, who wrote the bible wanted people to do and don't do certain things. If we still kept the same morality about things, as was written in the Old Testament, we'd still kill unfaithful wifes, homosexuals and peaople who work on sabbath. We don't do that anymore because we've developed from that crude morality. Why would I want to be saved from infidelity and thrown into a group of believers, who indoctrinate their own, disregarding reason in so many ways?
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
Wait. What? He was driving through the countryside with a 6 year old girl?
thedalailamahimself 1 month ago 9
douglas was so shy when he introduced himself. he is exactly how I pictured him...thoughtful, introspective..sensitive...just like his characters.
aravindh2002 1 month ago
Oh my God, the two of them in the same room, AMAZING!
pvigil1995 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@lightandbeautiful
I agree with *everything* you said. No, one does not need "hatred or any kind of phobia to see" those differences...one only needs bigotry to do that, of which you seem to have a LOT! ROFL!!!
macgeek2004 2 months ago
Adams introduced Dawkins to his wife. God-lovers: piss off, you're commenting to people who couldn't care less what you have to say.
StaticTremor 2 months ago 5
Of course Dawkins knew Douglas Adams due to Dr Who. His wife, Lalla Ward, was Tom Bakers assistant in the seventies and was friends with Adams who was the programmes script editor.
broadshoulder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Excellent to see this again. I have the DVD set that includes this. Recommended viewing :)
LsBaba 3 months ago
@LsBaba @LsBaba what is the name of the dvd , if u wd b so kind; cheers & merry merry 4 this xmas season
davemastersxxx 1 month ago
@davemastersxxx the title of the DVD set is "Growing Up In The Universe". You can buy it at Richard Dawkins dot net
The Richard Dawkins Dot Net YT channel has the videos. I watched them online originally, and then bought the DVDs
LsBaba 1 month ago
I hope the members of that audience knew just how very lucky they were. What I would have given!!
damiensharjah 3 months ago
if it wears a white coat(priests, doctors, scientists), approach with high critisism.
Not all of them are carreer based or so called evidence based, some still explore beyond the box.
Like Rupert Sheldrake for instance, who is not ego based and open for critisism.
Basicly, Richard Dawkins is an arrogant prick, but thats how i see it.
rovpilot1 3 months ago
@rovpilot1 Get back to work peasant
AClarke2007 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ENERGY never dies, is eternal and cannot be created. So before our universe of matter formed from Energy the Energy always existed Eternally and Infinitely, then the energy formed matter, matter in motion produces space and time. I completly agree with the scientific evedience backing this like relativity, Conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. I call that Energy that becomes matter God, thats why I see God in everything, or as you might say: I see energy in everything. : )
truthseeker010101 3 months ago
Dawkins is the perfect example of how ignorant scientists are, they see themselves as the ones who understand it all and others don't.
Science and ego...a dangerous mix
rovpilot1 3 months ago
@rovpilot1 no, scientists work for their answers, they come up with double blind trials, and strict experimental procedures, they make life harder for themselves and then have their work peer reviewed. Pope Benedict XVI claims that he is infallible and speaks the word of god....as do all other priests. Scientists admit on a daily basis they don't understand it all, otherwise their occupation would be redundant.
Toniipp 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@rovpilot1
"Dawkins is the perfect example of how ignorant scientists are, they see themselves as the ones who understand it all and others don't."
- Inferiority complex much?
...and until you acquire the achievements Dawkins has achieved, really you're just another irrelevant hater. Seriously jealousy has no positive inclination to society.
nolobede 3 months ago
@rovpilot1 Ignorance and ego, an even worse mix.
dujl 1 month ago
two totally bad ass mofos in the same room together...my happiness is maximized
stephenie27 4 months ago
Great! I wasn't sure what the translation was in Korean, but now I know.
john34841 4 months ago
so long, and thanks for all the fish ::)
RustyRocktopus 4 months ago
Holy crap they're young here.
dahuterschuter 4 months ago
Where did Dawkins get this "little girl if six". I assume it was his daughter, but if not, that's a bit weird...
UnspecifiedCarnage 4 months ago
@UnspecifiedCarnage
Since when men spending time with little girls looks "weird"? Have you never heard of uncles? Godfathers? Family friends?
Fuck you and fuck the gay indoctrinated society that screams "HURR DURR PEDOPHILE" at the slightest fucking excuse.
arcarulez 4 months ago
@arcarulez Bloody hell, learn to notice a joke will you...
UnspecifiedCarnage 4 months ago
@UnspecifiedCarnage
I'm sorry, it was a dumb joke. Especially ironic when under a video of Douglas bloody Adams.
arcarulez 4 months ago
I grew up on the Hitchhiker's books and I still have my set, autographed by Douglas Adams when he came by my University to promote "Mostly Harmless." We miss his genius!
Ericwvb2 5 months ago
Dawkins and Adams; what could be better than that? Warms my heart and saddens it at the same time.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many answers to the meaning of life are to be found in the 42 chapters of ' The reason driven life' by Master of the Bibleverse Robert M Price. This package can uninstall viral ciphertext by giving questions that show what ideas are not the answers. Your software may be upgraded from kb superstition systems by recognizing ancient text messages as superfiction. C2 author Victor J Stenger. Travel with these guides to a 21C Gb Galaxy vision. May the force of their sceptical logic be with you.
zytigon 5 months ago
This is incredible. Douglas Adams is my favorite. I wanted to cry and laugh at the same time when I saw Adams' face at first. So good.
fendertele1988 5 months ago
@zytigon "It isn't rocket science to defend your family from murder,rape,theft"
Unless its the god telling the Israelites to murder, rape and thieve lands in the old testiment. God broke so many of those himself its difficult to take those pius oh so holy big 10 seriously and as you say its not rocket science to say dont murder. I mean if that god practised what he preachesfrom the start we would have all been Jainists.
MsOneiroi77 5 months ago
@MsOneiroi77 God violates neither His commandments by using the Israelites to bring justice to those who rebelled against Him; nor by punishing those of His creation who choose to reject His law. He does not violate His commandments by using the infinite sacrifice of His son to atone for some of those who broke His law, but He is not required to place the violations of all people on His son.
colorado4815162342 2 months ago
@colorado4815162342 "God violates neither His commandments by using the Israelites to bring justice to those who rebelled against Him"
I would like you to actually explain that rather than just stating it. Because thou shalt not kill is one of the big ten on his list and a murder in his name is still murder by any other name.
MsOneiroi77 2 months ago 2
@MsOneiroi77 In Genesis 9:5-6 God placed a high value on bearers of his image. In Romans 13 it is stated that God established the government in part to kill those men who kill other men for no good reason. You must be specific if you want to discuss a particular incident as it may have been unwarranted murder quite outside of God's orders, and subsequently deserving the punishment of death.
colorado4815162342 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colorado4815162342 you dont actually explain anything infanticide would be a good place to start with god wanting to kill children.
MsOneiroi77 2 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Nobody here wants you to tell them one single piece of information about your imaginairy friend.
Alohomora42 1 month ago
the animal sounds like Marvins ideal reincarnation at least it had the decency to shoot itself.
MsOneiroi77 5 months ago
@MrArpas123
The continued existence of atheism strongly suggests the method outlined does not work.
Without even having viewed it, I feel comfortable in asserting that if I do watch it, I will either feel insulted or amused, and my opinion of believers will drop.
Do you still wish me to watch it?
rkyeun 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Royal Institution Christmas Lecture 1991, Growing Up in the Universe. How brilliant that all, nearly 5 hours, of it are available on here. I love the fact that Douglas attended.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago
1.43 guy with red sweater... gets owned
mynameisauk 6 months ago 5
He was a brilliant man
cptmuska 6 months ago
Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide Series are worthy of being on the world's 'Simply Must Read List'. Miss you.
bboots100 6 months ago
So long and thanks for all the laughs
sean666able 6 months ago 5
@sean666able
Fish. You mean fish.
XD
rkyeun 5 months ago
Thank you to Douglas Adams!!! I have read, and re-read, his books so many times I can quote passages from memory. I hope I get to meet him on the other side.
peterpotpie 6 months ago 2
@peterpotpie I certainly don't hope you will, for if there were an "other side", our dear Douglas would be quite occupied burning for eternity in it... for not having faith. More importantly; so would I!
eikons 6 months ago
probably the two most fascinating people in modern times, Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins. this was a real pleasure to watch, RIP Douglas.
truthslap 6 months ago 3
DNA r.i.p
Akco007 6 months ago
both are very valuable people two world.. shame one of them is dead.
mynameisauk 8 months ago 6
@mynameisauk With death comes greater recognition and comments about wishing the dead person was still alive. Energy doesn't dissipate - death is the next best promotion tool to being sampled in a hit song. Douglas is still making a difference.
tayloreh 4 months ago
@tayloreh agreed, it was after adams death when I noticed how universally awesome the guide is, --considering i'm 17 that's perfectly normal-- but still.. what could he produce, who knows?
p.s: hit song?
mynameisauk 4 months ago
42
EmmetC 8 months ago 33
10 years today... The world has been a far less froody place without him. R.I.P. Douglas Adams <3
jackbell13 8 months ago 6
@jackbell13 Ever since Adam's died, I have been unable to find my towel.
spehizle 7 months ago 95
@spehizle That's not very hoopy of you.
A hoopy frood ALWAYS knows where his towel is, even after a critical author existence failure.
hotelmario510 1 week ago
I love and miss this man <3
Zyauna 8 months ago
RIP Douglas Adams
KEEETARO 9 months ago
Comment removed
pamination 9 months ago
This from a guy (RD) apparently concerned and indignant about religion being taught in the Science Classroom! The irony and double standard is astounding. Not the first time he has done it either.
I am not a Christian nor a fan of the Bible either (so have no bias there), but I am a teacher. The man is nolonger interested in pure science he has a worldview to sell, and children are clearly good customers.
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 that someone doesnt want children to be brainwashed by a particular religion by having it taught to them as truth in a science classroom, makes them have a double standard? im lost.
volound 10 months ago
@volound seriously it should not be possible to construe what you wrote here from what I wrote. Richard has a worldview (it is nested in Philosophical Naturalism/Materialism) and he holds to it 'firmly,' and it functions as a religion for him (as even Ruse concedes) and it is it that he is pushing here to the kids, not Science. I have seen him do it elsewhere too even more overtly!
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 saying that philosophical naturalism functions as a religion is just utter tripe. that makes no sense.
saying to children "there are thousands of different religions and they all require faith in lieu of evidence, and therefore faith is not a pathway to truth" is the humane thing to do.
science is BY DEFINITION locked in the realm of the natural i.e. what is REAL. to abide by the scientific method is to be a naturalist. to teach science is to be "pushing" naturalism.
volound 10 months ago
@volound "just utter tripe" Michael Ruse has write extensively on this matter, perhaps you should appraise that material. After all; others, effectively on your side, and others, on effectively my side, also think this to be the case. And irony of ironies so did the founders of The Modern Synthesis (a very major kingpin of your worldview no doubt)!
So your bare assertion, coupled with your all too apparent glib familiarity with the issues at hand are not going to wash here I am afraid.
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 is that your stock comment for when you cant be bothered/arent able to address the actual comment at hand?
i have appraised that material. michael ruse is at the centre of the evolution/intelligent design debate. his works are all within that context. richard dawkins, isnt, and so none of this applies.
i maintain that it is indeed utter tripe. atheism is to religion as bald is to a hair colour, or non-stamp collecting is to a hobby. apples and oranges. utter tripe.
volound 10 months ago
@vol "stock comment"! What stock comment? "I have appraised that material. Michael Ruse is at the centre of the evolution/intelligent design debate. His works are all within that context. Richard Dawkins’, isn’t, and so none of this applies." Facepalm cubed, seriously facepalm, facepalm and FACEPALM again. Are you being serious here? "non-stamp collecting" but you keep presenting 'stamps' a plenty! But sincerely believe you are not, is it actually funny, but a shame you are blind to the joke.
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 saying "atheism is like a religion" is just a glaring category error. more typical of a religious simpleton who is grasping at straws at the end of a losing debate, than an atheist. its kindergarten apologetics at its most ignorant and disingenuous. atheism is quite simply a position on a claim, that claim being of a gods existence, and that position being of disbelief.
if dawkins has any worldview to sell to children, it is that of skepticism, from which his atheism is derived.
volound 10 months ago
@volound dude if "skepticism" is the metric we are valuing here, then I am leaving you standing in my wake!
Might I suggest you read "The Evolutionary View" by Julian Huxley (no less!) You really should be more familiar with the works of your Gurus and the Founding Father's of your faith.
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 ive probably already read all the books you could name on the subject.
and i dont have "faith" in anything. i have reasonable expectations based on evidence and reasoned logic. if you can name something in which i have faith.. guess what ill do.. ill stop believing it.
on a side note: im not sure if youve been told before, but your style of rhetoric is pointlessly condescending, patronising and verbose.
also, i like how you ignored the top 80% of my last comment.
volound 10 months ago
@volound "there are thousands of different religions and they all require faith in lieu of evidence, and therefore faith is not a pathway to truth;" this in the Science Classroom? Right! And any counter or more nuanced view should be prohibited? Ummm..."beware the sound of one hand clapping"!
"to teach science is to be 'pushing' naturalism." If you say so, no but seriously!
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 "this in the Science Classroom?"
no. thats not science. but that was also not an assertion. that faith goes no way towards distinguishing false religions from true ones is demonstrable. maybe one day when supernatural claims are falsifiable, the uselessness of faith can be empirically shown.
"If you say so, no but seriously!"
give me any one example of the scientific method being successfully applied to the supernatural i.e. that which transcends the natural.
volound 10 months ago
@allan3141 You're a teacher and you can't tell the difference between teaching kids to enjoy fiction and teaching kids that ancient mythology is revealed truth?
Tapecutter59 9 months ago
I was following along in my copy of "Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (the second book in the series of "Hitchhiker's Guide", chapter 17) and discovered he was paraphrasing quite a bit.
DSAhmed 10 months ago
If there is no God, there can be no wrong. The values of the individual will conflict with that of the group. Calling whatever the group does not agree with "wrong" would be non - absolute.
If there was no absolute wrong, eating a mammal would not be wrong either.
colorado4815162342 10 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Even if that was true, you still have to figure out which god is the right one.
kablamo9999 10 months ago
@kablamo9999 4 There is but one only, the living and true God. The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, and is alone able fully to persuade men that it is the very Word of God.
9There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.
I swiped these from the Westminster Larger Catechism.
colorado4815162342 10 months ago
@colorado4815162342 There certainly can. Whether atheist or religious, there are many things people will always agree are wrong and right- murder, rape, theft, arson; these are all things anyone will agree is NOT all right to put your fellow man through. Moral does not come from god, it comes from human instinct and construction.
Greatkingrat88 10 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 I do not agree that murder, rape, theft and arson are right and wrong.
colorado4815162342 10 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Then what are they?
Greatkingrat88 10 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 they are not objectively wrong. torture is not objectively wrong. right/wrong, justice, good, evil etc are all human constructs.
although i do not like torture and do not torture people because i do not want to be tortured, torture is not objectively wrong. morality is purely subjective.
just stating this in case, for clarity.
volound 10 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. The sixth commandment states that murder is wrong. The seventh commandment states that rape is wrong. The eighth commandment states that theft and arson are wrong. These commandments are rational instructions God gave to all men in real space time to obey. -WLC #98
Randomness does not create order.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 If all moral really DID come from some supernatural, almighty yet unprovable entity, then anyone who did not believe in him would logically lack that moral compass.
However, atheists, or anyone non-christian, are no more prone to violence, rape or murder than a christian. Moral comes from US, a superstitious invention to help answer questions we did not have the answers to.
Randomness does noit make order indeed. Good thing it is not created randomly at all.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 Morality can only exist if it is an absolute standard. If morality must be applicable to all to be objectvie, It must be apart of the order of the entire universe. If you are going to claim that order in our universe was produced by "pan dimensional beings who caused the big bang and seeded the earth with life"; What is God but a pan dimensional being? We have the word of God, to be analyzed, and read objectively. What is evolution, but random genetic mutations?
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 I never once claimed it was the work of a "pan-dimensional being". Intelligent design is not something I support; it is just christianity in sheep's clothing.
There's nothing "random" about natural selection. On the contrary, the best gene material survives BECAUSE it is best suited for survival. There is order, but nothing indicates a higher order made it happen.
And would you kindly respond to my argument that faith is no factor when it comes to heninous crimes?
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 Both speakers in this video believe that "pan dimensional beings caused the big bang and seeded the earth with life", Have you not read the Hitch hiker's Guide to The Galaxy?
Knowledge is essential to Biblical faith. Biblical faith is not a leap into non reason. Biblical faith is when an individual, relies on the objective reality of the work, person, and office of Jesus Christ, that occurred in real space and time, to secure his salvation from the second death, or hell.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 I have. Pandimensional beings are irrelevant to MY beliefs, though.
Actually, it is. You cannot have a faith in god, a supernatural being, and have rationality at the same time.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 You cannot have a rational universe without a prime mover. You cannot have something from nothing. God created into nothing, not out of nothing.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Yes, you very much can.
And yet, this "God" remains utterly impossible to prove with rational means or scientific method, and his methods, if his book is to be believed, are rather horrible.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 If God did not create the universe, from whence did it spring?
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Just because we do not know the answer to that question isn't a good reason to believe in an irrational, supernatural, unprovable and quite evil being.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago 3
@Greatkingrat88 Your philosophical system has no objective standard to judge any action or person as evil. Your system consists of the emotions of your and others' brains. Your emotions are neither rational, nor objective. Your only choice to regain morality is, to consciously or unconsciously, revert to the moral coding implanted within you. Otherwise you have no standard to judge anyone for anything. The choice is yours. Objective moral standards; or irrational fluctuating emotions.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Well to begin with: a religious moral system is indeed only valid if there actually exists the specific god one holds to be the "objective" moral judge of all humanity. If we can't concede with confidence that this being actually exists, by observing the evidence and or arguments in favor of it, it soon becomes obvious that the moral is not valid. In my opinion no such conclusive evidence has been presented.
However, this is only the beginning of the problems.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 I do not need your assent to create God's existence. No one can create God. God exists independent of you, me, and the rest of humanity. If we needed common consent to prove God's existence, least ways based on evidence other than the Bible, "God" would probably be only an amplification of humanity, rather than the creator of humanity. God is not a communal imagined idea.
You have presented assumptions. You have presented no evidence.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Have you never heard of the Great Green Arkleseizure?
clamtrox 9 months ago
@clamtrox I have heard of them; they do not define the word "God".
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Then you must know that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
clamtrox 9 months ago
No, @Clamtrox, an individual's knowledge of a [fictional] creature who poses as a god, is not the same as that individual's assent to its existence or title. Adams bestows the title of "God" on creatures in his book. The God who is, holds his own title, "The first and The last." No one can give it to him.
What am I trying to say? Knowledge of a creature who poses as a god is a straw argument for the non-existence of the God who is, was, and is to come. See I Corinthians 10 and Revelation 1:8.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 - A fictional creature...hmmmm........
magicdogfighterV2 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 I almost choked on my tea when I read this comment, you certainly made my day :D The most hilarious thing ever! Thanks!
clamtrox 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342
Well then god must have been created by someone too. I mean "you can't have something from nothing", right?
xDarkBloodAngelx 9 months ago
@xDarkBloodAngelx You cannot have something from nothing. You can have something created into nothing. That is creation. Your conclusion of "God's creator" is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the premises presented.
colorado4815162342 9 months ago
@colorado4815162342 Try listening to C. Hitchens Youtube critique on 10 commandments or DanBarker, J. W Loftus, G. Greenberg. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein says there is scant evidence for O.T. stories. There are 3 sets of 10Cs in O.T. the only ones officially called 10Cs Exodus 34v28. v26 says 10th C - "Do not boil kid goat in it's mothers milk"? What kind of god would want animal or human sacrifice- an imaginary one. It isn't rocket science to defend your family from murder,rape,theft
zytigon 5 months ago
How can anyone dislike this?
lilannsul 10 months ago
hmmm... Douglas just happened to be in the audience... must be the work of an intelligent designer ;)
concertpianist88 10 months ago 2
Dawkins and Adams, two people I would have loved to have been at Milliway's with.
(I would have ordered dessert)
TrillianAlice 10 months ago 3
How the hell did someone manage to translate that? xD
NStenO 11 months ago 3
WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE!!!
PaladinswordSaurfang 11 months ago
Very amusing, but what does it show about reality? Anyone knowing ecology knows that each species IS there for the sake of the whole ecosystem. So Dawkins belittling the girl's keen insight that flowers are there for the sake of bees (& bees for the sake of flowers), is just bad biology. It shows the fundamental irrationality of Dawkins, who is willing to ignore what he should know for the sake of making an atheological point. Sad. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis no, they serve the ecosystem, but that's not why they exist and doesn't explain how they came into existence either... that's the point he's trying to make
PaladinswordSaurfang 11 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang "Ecosystem" is a human abstract concept. The reality is the individual organisms and their interactions. Organisms serve a reality - other organisms - not an abstraction. I do not dispute the how of evolution. I am saying that there is more to be seen by those open enough to look - not just the how, but the why. Devotees of the naturalist faith have a dogma against purposes. The rest of us can look at the data as I do in my videos #17-#20. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis I believe you are quite right. Ecosystems are linked and the progress of one system can be dependant on another. In fact I agree that, instead of belittling the little girl, Dawkins should have appreciated the fact that, whilst the function of the flower is to survive and re produce, as with the bee, she was not wrong to suggest that an evolutionary dependancy that flower and bees have on each other is part of their mutual success and continued existence of their respective species.
BelatedCommiseration 11 months ago
@dfpolis
No dude; nothing in nature is there for the sake of anything else other than itself. Because there is a cooperative relationship between the bees and the flowers doesn't mean they're there for the sake of each-other. And the little girl said more specifically "for the bees, so that they can make honey for us". That's an anthropocentric point of view. She's not fitting the flowers into the context of its ecological function, she's looking at how they're useful to US.
WSWarthog 11 months ago
@WSWarthog It means that they co-evolved and are interdependent. The whole ecosystem is interdependent, directly or indirectly. We are one of the organisms using honey as an energy source. What do you think being for the sake of means? A being for the sake of B means that B benefits from A. So, what, precisely is the problem you see? I am not saying the little girl is a systems ecologist, only that the relation she saw is real.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
"It means that they co-evolved and are interdependent" - yes but when you use terms like "for the sake of" you're implying some intentional motivation behind their relationship rather than happenstance convenience.
"A being for the sake of B means that B benefits from A."
I don't agree. I might drop my wallet by accident and a hobo might pick it up. He benefits from the event, but that isn't to say that losing money is a process for the sake of hobos.
WSWarthog 11 months ago
@WSWarthog Intent is clear in the data. Wallace, evolution's cofounder saw its "mind action." The laws of nature, aka natural selection, are intentional. (my video #14). They meet Brentano's criterion of intentionality & their genus's only other species is human commitments. Dawkins argues evolution overcomes improbability by guidance (#16, #17). It has target forms (#17, #19). Evo-devo shows means prepared in advance (#18) of ends. One instance is not a pattern. An MO shows intent. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
No intent is not clear in the data.
WSWarthog 11 months ago
@WSWarthog I am not doing yes it is, not it is not with you. If you wish to criticize my positions, comment on my videos or on my paper "Mind or Randomness in Evolution" xianphil.org/Intent_evol.htm. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis and this from a guy (RD) apparently concerned and indignant about religion being taught in the Science Classroom! The irony and double standard is astounding. Not the first time he has done it either.
I am not a Christian nor a fan of the Bible either (so have no bias there), but I am a teacher. The man is nolonger interested in pure science he has a worldview to sell, and children are clearly good customers.
allan3141 10 months ago
@allan3141 I agree. Evolution is science, naturalism is spin. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
Douglas Adams, So long and thanks for all the Babel Fish.
TheNamelessCharacter 11 months ago
Oh, that was SO NOT STAGED; LOL.
gulbirk 11 months ago 3
Douglas Adams, what an amazing coincidence!
Fucking lol at that, Dawkins is such a ledge :P.
WillFoShizzle 1 year ago 60
This has been flagged as spam show
So great seeing 2 of my favorite guys right there together! (Going to go see you in Highgate next time I go to London, Douglas!) The important thing to remember is that we humans (all history, all physical bits aside) have the power of CHOICE.
oleggirl 1 year ago
So great seeing 2 of my favorite guys right there together! (Going to go see you in Highgate next time I go to London, Douglas!) The important thing to remember is that we humans (all history, all physical bits aside) have the power of CHOICE.
oleggirl 1 year ago 2
roac7777; You wear unnatural fibers.. eat shellfish... eat pork... those are acts clearly condemned by god, yet you ignore those edits, only to dwell on ONE single condemnation
in short sir, you are a lying, hypocritical idiot
Kornknealious 1 year ago
@Kornknealious So what if I wear man made fibres, eat shellfish. Where does it say you shouldnt. Fuck you and your god. I will not be told by any human what to eat or what to wear, let alone his sadist, mass murdering, infant killing, homophobic, gynaephobic, capricious man made god.
roac7777 1 year ago
@Kornknealious Idiot, fuck you and your man made god. No one tells me what I should wear and eat, least of all his or her, non existent, celestial tyrant.
roac7777 1 year ago
what year is this from?
80smoviesguy 1 year ago
@80smoviesguy 1991, according to Wikipedia's page on "Growing Up in the Universe".
ThomasJAckerman 1 year ago
I feel a sudden hunger for some rich red beef.
hammerogod 1 year ago
@hammerogod fuck me too!..
infinitenight2093 1 year ago
This video mist be very old, since Douglas Adams past away in 2001.
dreampilot2 1 year ago
Great.
Vahtacen 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who else thinks Richard Dawkins sounds like an woman of advanced age rather than a young man?
DontTouchMyVicodin 1 year ago
How GREAT is that! Douglas Adams just "happens" to be there! :D
aModernDandy 1 year ago 5
holy shit, how young does Richard Dawkins look!
dunamis90 1 year ago 2
"lol you're WRONG kid, *SMACK* science says yes it's for it's own damn self replicating purpose!"
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
wow that's the first ive ever heard from a douglas adams book and i know already he must b a comedy genius
jhibbitt1 1 year ago
The cow is our our mother-she supplies milk as a mother. So killing a cow is like killing your mother-not recommended for an "evolved" human. Go vegetarian/vegan.
nandanugent 1 year ago
@nandanugent Are you calling my mother a cow?
tommbarton24 1 year ago
@tommbarton24 Mothers supply milk, cows supply milk therefore cow is a mother in that sense.A cow is always a mother but a mother is not always a cow!
nandanugent 1 year ago
@nandanugent Last I checked the requirement for being a mother was having children. In which case, chickens and fish are also mothers. Anyway, to suggest that eating meat is not for "evolved humans" is funny considering that we've been eating meat for the most recent thousands if not millions of years in our evolutionary process.
tommbarton24 1 year ago
@tommbarton24 Who are the "we" you refer to? Do you mean Neanderthals? There are different types of humans some less evolved than others, the less evolved seem to die off early. Vegetarians generally have a longer life span and IQ than the norm, as well as better physique and better skin etc.The anatomy of a human is closer to that of a herbivore, long intestine, no claws, perspires through skin, no sharp front teeth/has molars and stomach acid 20 times less strong than animal carnivores.
sarojinius 1 year ago
@sarojinius animals including us cannot be more evolved than others by definition! A lifeform is only evolved for its environment, if the lifeform is fitted (fittest) to its environment it will thrive, if not, or if the environment changes it will die out or evolve depending on the circumstances!
psychobartus 1 year ago 3
@sarojinius Humans are omnivores, our intesinile tract is virtually identical to that of a pig, (also an omnivore), and very different to the 4 stomached ruminants such as cows and sheep.
The fact that humans perspire is an evolutionary adaptation that enables a uniquely human type of hunting; ie: the persistance hunt - watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo
The claim that vegitarians are smarter and live longer is just ego boosting nonsense that vegitarians tell themselves.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago 3
@Tapecutter59 *vegetarians
404MULTIFAIL 1 year ago
Comment removed
pamination 9 months ago
@tommbarton24 The key word here is evolved-not primitive forms from millions of years ago who existed at the beginning of the process of evolution. Evolution means change not stasis right?
nandanugent 1 year ago
I like Dawkins now, but know when I was a kid, these kinds of demonstrations always bored me. Makes me wonder if there could somehow be a good middle to strike when it comes to 'edutainment'.
RyouConcord 1 year ago
Easily the greatest video on YT!
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago 2
So long, Douglas and thanks for all the fish.
jacksawild 1 year ago 159
@jacksawild I would like this, but then it would no longer be the answer to life, the universe, and everything. I am very conflicted.
DejaViewed 1 year ago
@jacksawild
42 people have given a thumbs up to your comment, I dare not mess with it :D
prashantparikh 1 year ago 21
Comment removed
falconszone 1 year ago
Why have not I read this book?
fyrefox4289 1 year ago
@fyrefox4289 Good question.
jayanx 1 year ago
@fyrefox4289
try the audiobook, it's read by douglas himself :)
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
I love this guy.
bigboxbobby2 1 year ago 2
wow, that passage like really made me think, damn
Dpesh7 1 year ago
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
God bless You
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave "JezusSlave" as a nic says it all, eh?
Drwhofan1971 1 year ago
@JezusSlave does this mean: "canibalism is great", or "there is a god, and he wants you to eat him"
skaribou 1 year ago
@skaribou God wants us to be His children and heirs of his Kingdom, he wants to be in us and around us and not the next to or somewhere far away, wants to be with us not only spiritually but already here on earth also physically through His body and blood in the Eucharist of the Church. A living God in sacrament of the Catholic Church as was foretold and promised by Jesus Christ Himself in the Bible
John 6:66 / your choice!
youtube. com / watch? v = S1tcWKCuWWY
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave that means, he wants to be eaten AND to rape some children...
skaribou 1 year ago
@skaribou JOHN 6:66 / YOUR CHOICE!
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave 666 ... i get it... haha, funny.
skaribou 1 year ago
@JezusSlave I choose to tell you to shove it up where there ain´t no sunshine.
yatter1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yatter1 ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
YOUTUBE. COM / WATCH? V = S1TCWKCUWWY
JOHN 6: 32-66
JezusSlave 1 year ago
@JezusSlave Those, who wrote the bible wanted people to do and don't do certain things. If we still kept the same morality about things, as was written in the Old Testament, we'd still kill unfaithful wifes, homosexuals and peaople who work on sabbath. We don't do that anymore because we've developed from that crude morality. Why would I want to be saved from infidelity and thrown into a group of believers, who indoctrinate their own, disregarding reason in so many ways?
SuperArnie 1 year ago