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 !!!
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
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
Seriously, why do people worship this Jesus loser still, it's so childish......When will they see that Zeus is the one true God, the light that loves everyone in his beautiful creation? :)
@jeushant Of course I can't disprove God. I also know you can't prove the existance of God, as I also know you can't disprove Tooth Faires from existing.
@THEGREATESTUMMAH At least that's not completely unthinkable. There's too much evidence for evolution by natural selection to deny it. Maybe god did create man through evolution, but it seems unlikely to me.
Since he stated that he's #6 on the scale (not #7), he doesnt 100% believe his own words. Probably "god" is the only guy who believes 100% his own words...cause they're in teh Bible :D
BTW, not-100%-believe-in-your-own- word is far from hypocrisy (which is a state of pretending). Science is all about chance & probability.
That being said, does he have a choice if he REALLY need to find a "right" doctor ? Obviously, he has to take risk.
...that's just my humble opinion based on his speech.
I'm not sure dawkins even believes his own words on that one point about not thinking a scientist can reconcile being a scientist if he is a christian.
that would imply dawkins has to proof people in his life to make sure they arent believers. afterall, why would he trust a doctor to perform surgery on him if he's a "delusional" person.
I've just uploaded a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox! Check out my channel or search for -> "Has Science Buried God?" - Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox debate (1/8)
@talons2112 Translation for talons2112; "I'm too stupid to understand any of the evidence being put forward and too lazy to try and improve on myself. mr dawkins needs to follow the doctrines put forward by an evil, conceited, schizophrenic, Jewish heretic so long ago that his very existence is disputed.
@4ThomasAllan case and point. this is exactly how you guys conduct "science". insults, bigotry, racism and ridcule along with no evidence. last i looked under scientific observation and theory the definition was totally different than what you conduct. however its easy to spot an atheist in the crowd by their militant "just believe because i yell the loudest" mentality.
@talons2112 lol, I didn't say I was doing science you imbecile. How fucking dumb do you have to be to be to assume that everybody who disagrees with you is necessarily using science or is an atheist? If I was using science I wouldn't bother using insults, Occam's razor disposes of a need for invectives and technically I'm an agnostic. I was just mocking your stupid comment because of its overwhelming ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution and the condescending crap about Jesus.
*and where the fuck was the bigotry and racism? do you even know what you're talking about? or do you just throw out a random selection of grievances and hope that some of them stick? You and those like you are part of the reason why it's impossible to take the "hurt feelings" of the religious seriously, have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? FYI projecting the religious strategy of trying to drawn out the competition by being the most voluminous only makes you a hypocrit.
@talons2112 - It is a little ironic that you have gone out of your way to come to a lecture by Richard Dawkins and call Atheists "bigoted" and "racist" and then you accuse us of holding a "just believe because I yell the loudest mentality."
@nze82 Ha, I just had the same thought a moment before reading your comment. I think it's because being part of a religious community is very very comforting. I say it's better to center community around science, logic, psychology. Basically around university-like places. Education is key in helping people see they're just seeing shadows in Plato's Cave. (read that short story if you haven't!) It's only a matter of time before reason beats out brainwashing.
Humans are limited in the knowledge of the whole truth therefore men need faith. Science deals only with matter which men measure, weigh, calculate...with intellect. But life force that animates matter is in higher dimension which does not agree with scientific laws and it requires faith, intuition...some kind of divine revelation from the beyond, in order to feel complete.
We are yet to verify the existence of a "life force". So far, the laws of physics seem sufficient to explain how living beings function. I did not expect to see a "God of the gaps" argument made where there is no gap.
And whether someone feels complete or not has no bearing on whether there's higher dimensions, Gods, demons, or whatever.
His scale gives me pause, because his argument building is fairly complex. But I wanted to make this point: just because something has a low probability of existing does not mean it doesn't exist. To my knowledge, we still haven't figured out how we even have a universe.
I find it interesting that Carl Sagan, who clearly rejected revealed religion, ended his novel with his main character discovering evidence of an intelligence behind the universe. Why was he drawn to invoke such a scenario? Dawkins seems unconcerned with the question of a creator per se and spends almost all of his time blasting theism, mostly Abrahamic religions. Not without justification of course.
@serioushamster Well, that's certainly a possible interpretation. But it would have to be an intelligence in a "meta-universe" of which ours is a component, because in Sagan's novel, transcendental numbers like pi contain messages. In other words, the mathematical order behind our universe contains messages (in the novel) that are unambiguously from an intelligence. Whether that meta-universe intelligence would be supernatural depends on your definition I guess.
@maplebayou1 It would be an awful waste of space if we were the only intelligent life in the universe. It is estimated that there are a hundred billlion galaxies each with billions of stars, it would be arrogant to think we are the only life that has evolved, similarly arrogant to when the church insisted on a geocentric universe.
@Jshect I agree with you, but when I said "intelligence behind the universe," I meant that Sagan's protagonist discovers that the universe was created (his words). The evidence for this consists of unambiguous messages in transcendental numbers like pi. This important element was missing from the movie based on his novel.
@Jshect As for extraterrestrials, some find it an ominous portent that we have received no unambiguous messages from them. Of course there could be many explanatiions for this, but many take this to mean that technological civilizations quickly destroy themselves, almost always. One wonders if evolutionary baggage almost inevitably snuffs out these little candles spread across the galaxy.
i went to see the hubble flim after seing this all it done is reenforce in my atheisme,after seing that i couls see that we are an electron in a grain of sand in a beach of sand ,why should a god would care about us even create us alone in the entire immensity of galxy that contains billions and billions of stars
@Eye2EyeIIIV I visited your channel. I still see not a shred of evidence. If I can find no evidence on your channel, what makes you think Dawkins would? What I have found is an ignorance of history and logic.
existence is more likely to have been just, provoked. inadvertently by some reaction or something from beyond the universe. actual intentional creation from some entity seems very very wrong. people dont need this false comfort as much these days, and we need to remove religious influence from unneccessary priviledge and authory in politcs. people get comfort from the simple fact that were continually finding new truths and putting more pieces into the puzzle.
were all in the same boat and lifes and deaths inevitable and were all in the same boat. THATS comfort. fuck god. theri puppets for a bunch of ego obsessed megalomaniacs who hypnotise thier audience with their own fantasy novels for thier own organisations. these religions breed their audiences as members and forcing parents to pass the cancer on new generations under false threat of eternal torture. if that doesnt sound like an evil man made phenomon then i dont know what the hell does.
Exactly. Natural selection, therefore, does not have the issue of infinite regress, because it clearly has a set beginning.
The fact that scientists have yet to develop an equally strong theory on the origins of the universe (although there are several interesting ones) does not then count as a mark against the theory of natural selection.
We have natural selection, and we have abiogenesis. We're simply missing the origin., but we're working on it.
It only has a beginning so far as life forms come from lifeless matter. However, it is now faced with the problem of WHERE the lifeless matter comes from.
I'm not disputing that it clearly explains the beginning of life forms. I'm disputing that it doesn't help us understand where the inanimate matter which creates life forms comes from
Indeed, but that is hardly the fault of the theory of natural selection.
The theories of gravity are not challenged on the grounds that they do not explain the origins of the universe, because it is an entirely different field of science involved. Same idea with natural selection.
Evolution doesn't try to explain origins, and it doesn't need to, because it only comes into effect once life arises. You're meshing together several theories to create the illusion of a conflict.
I see your point. I agree that natural selection answers where the origins of life begin. I don't put it on the theory of natural selection to explain where existence comes from. However, until scientists can show where existence comes from, they will never be able to rule out a designer.
I am an atheist myself, however, I accept that until a designer can be disproven, or an answer to the origin of existence itself is found, a designer cannot be ruled out.
@Bringerofdeath9753 and at least scientists admit they don't have a definitive answer! that's humility... unlike the 'humility' that "i'm so special & everything is created with me in mind" which is what religion is all about.
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."- Romans 1:20
Oh don't be such an immature prick.. What the feck does Jesus has to do with it? There is a chance that he could not even have been a real person for all we know. And if he was an actual historical figure, I'm quite sure that the Christian faith and all that farce with its paedophile priests and their funny hats, was not what he had in mind.
@loveJesus4eternity Oh brother, another one of those. First, how do you know Jesus died for you, or that any of the claims about his life are true? Because the Bible tells you so? Second, if Jesus was real, I don't think temporarily dying, then coming back in a stronger body and being worshipped forever counts as a sacrifice. Third, if he cares about all of us, maybe he shouldn't inflict infinite punishment on those who don't believe in him.
@loveJesus4eternity: I do not want ANYBODY to die for me, thank you. To say that Dawkins does not care about other human beings is just wrong. Human beings caring for other human beings (and for other living beings), working to reduce suffering and increase well-being, make the world a better place. They (hopefully, we) make all the difference.
@TheJesusSucks I don't agree with you. Jesus is a positive character that has been misused as a figure throughout history. Still, he is not perfect. And still there's a small probability that he even existed. And yet still, I'm an atheist.
@Drakon222 You think damning homosexuals to hell, damning anyone who doesn't except Jesus as their personal savior to eternal torture is positive? Sure Jesus said treat others as you would like to be treated but so did confucius 1000 years earlier so that wasn't even original.
@TheJesusSucks I'd like to see Richard Dawkins own the intelectuals of the time better than Darwin could ever wish. And die for somone, let alone rise again.
@desasterz There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus died and than rose again from the dead. And since there there is no physical evidence it most likely never happened!
@TheJesusSucks Personally, I think, that Jesus has a very good philosphy of life, and he was a better man than we are (if we assume that descriped picture of Jesus in Bible is true). And to be clear i don't believe in God, or the miracles and ressurection of Jesus, but i still think that Jesus got some ideas that he was loyal to and thats worth to respect. (sorry for my english).
@DoktorJoint you obviously have only selectively read about jesus in the bible..sure is a bit more tolerant hen his dad..but still he has rather deplorable views on men and women, sexuality, slavery..no he really isn't that good, real or imagined he is rather facile and vile.
@YesYou123333 Right after he speaks at Hogwarts School of Magic and the Shire. There's not a bit of actual evidence for that place you mentioned. Why believe in something without evidence? Ridiculous.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
in the micro world, there are electons and nuclei in an atom. scale up and you have electon planets and a nucleus sun. scale up again; electon galaxys around an unknown nucleus. maybe something from a bigger world inadvertantly started existence on our scale.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
N.A.T.U.R.A.L.
S.E.L.E.C.T.I.O.N. = "Now Atheist Thinks Universal Randomness Also Leaves Special Exception: 'Logical Evolutionists'! (Contradicting Idea Of Naturalism!)
Natural Selection is not an alternative, because Dawkins would have to concede that their is no intelligence behind natural selection. His "Blind Watchmaker" is blinding its "By-product": Dawkins!
Besides, how can a Blind Watchmaker's by-product see, understand and even reason better than a non-seeing, nonrational process?
Please. My use of "noob" and such other slang terms are purely based to mock the ignorance of the internet community, and you.
Clearly, I have more of an education than you, spending less time pointlessly speculating and posting acronyms that exist only to defame or mock someone. Besides, pointing out the error in you comment is to relieve the passion that you have in it. Look at the comments in your channel. Take their advice.
Yes. That was the point. Can't take a dose of your own medicine? Only have care for your own feelings, but not others? Pathetic! You lack even a rudimentary understanding of moral. Your arrogance and pride are blatantly seen in those "acronyms" of yours. Acronym77, your cheesy, redundant, spiteful, and somewhat crude comments cause a detriment in the YouTube community. Your forgetting to put "the" in one of your acronyms shows how eager you are to mock someone.
Poor victim. Grow up! You criticized me first. Who called who a "Noob". What a wimp! You have taken "victimhood" to a new low in the Youtube community. You ought to make a video for all the times you have been "Defamed". But you will obviously leave out your crude, spiteful criticisms you give to others.
My criticisms are not crude nor spiteful. Clearly the way you put things shows your own state of being. I do not see this as a fight, (But you do, playing the "he did it first") merely a different viewpoint of what you are doing. The only reason you feel defamed is because my criticism of you is accurate and precise.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science on his side or not ... could we just not say we don't care how it happened ... it happened ... as they say ... "Shit happens" ... Humans appear ... we an only weep that it is reality.
OK people could have atleast speculated that humans evolved to a technological state in the future where time travel was possible then created the universe and were all living in this great paradox and some of us are destined to design everything or our descendents some time in the future, or the past or a possible future that could have happened if we all just learned to get along instead of displaying eachothers scalps on pyrimids in the past
I love how he says at the 9:00 mark, "you don't? Right then!! God did it!"" Cracks me up!! I should like to meet Mr. Dawkins and shake his hand! He is just genius!
The dawkinsus narcissus- a mutated lifeform -is shown in this clip;Recombinant DNA should be used to modify its microbial like Genome and allowed to develop under test conditions to see if it survives the natural selection process.
I forgot something. So Dawkin's mentions Daniel Dennett's crane example saying that the crane has more explanatory value than God's hand. While that might be true, the crane leaves something to be desired. For instance, we don't know why the laws of Gravity exist. It's a phenomena physicists haven't yet explained. The point is that the crane lacks the sort of absolutistic and comprehensive explanatory power Dawkins attributes to it...even though God's hand is more mysterious. Just fine tuning
Have you ever spoken to a physicist....do me a favor and ask a professional. I have, and they don't know why gravity functions in the way that it does. The best they have are theories that point to possible solutions, none of which have been validated.
Not sure what physcists you've talked to, but I work with some, and they have an extremely good grasp of gravity ;-) I'm sorry you do not. But the argument from personal incredulity isn't proof of God, ie: "I don't understand it personally, so God must have done it...."
God ,very simply, just does not make sense. There are thousands of arguments that show the probability of god to be close to nil or nil itself, with no refutation worth a plug nickle. But every argument for the existence of a god is at any time a few minutes away from being shredded with reality,logic,intelligence, reason and/or evidence.
you cant calculate the probability of a god's existing. Besides, the religous person doesn't have to prove that God exists. The burden rests on philosopher's to show that the concept of God is incoherent, in which case we could have no understanding of what/who/how God is if he were to exist.
By that logic, I suppose the teapotist does not have to prove that the teapot exists either. It must be up to the astronomers to disprove what they cannot get any evidence for, right? I suppose people that believe that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon do not have the burden of proof on them either. How about people that believe in talking giraffes? What about the Flying Spaghetti monster? What about the existence of Narnia? I suppose people have to disprove those ideas too.
you are totally off the mark and that doesn't follow from what I said. I'm only saying that substituting the hand of God for the crane doesn't make the phenomena TOTALLY COMPREHENDSIVELY explainable/understandable--> to strive for such comprehension of any physical event is impossible given the fact that the scientific theory of gravity is falsifiable by nature. I never said that we have to go about disproving the teapot theory. It's a skeptical assumption with no evidence--There, happy?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's exactly what I said in the above comment. What's at issue is the fact that the teapotist has no legitimate grounds for claiming that there is an interstellar teapot. No grounds=no reason for believing the interstellar teapot exists. Like i said, it's a skeptical assumpmtion with no evidence so we don't believe it. We're in agreement. But the God issue is another question. Because God isn't some physical entity in the universe, we can't use empirical evidence to disprove his existence.
or to prove it either. The God issue is a subject best left to philosophers with philosophical training and not to science enthusiasts who have no understanding of issues like concept coherence or metaphysical scope and who have no knowledge of the God debate which has raged since the fourth century. If you don't believe me, read Plantinga or Peter van Inwagen or Daniel Dennett or, hell. even read Aquinas. Don't listen to a biologist. That's like asking a zoologist how the universe began.
God - in the Jewish-Christian-Islamic sense, would have to be a physical entity in the universe, or at least would have to leave a physical impression of his actions. If God interferes with the physical processes in the universe then physical evidence would be left. No such evidence has ever been found. However, if we're talking about God in the deistic, philosophical sense, I agree with you in a way - it's an untestable hypothesis.
But we can look at the bible and disprove everything it says from a historical, geological, and scientific perspective. And since the bible is the word of god, we can assume that either god is full of BS, or he doesn't exist.
The Bible is the word of God only for Christians and Jews. Disproving the Bible's nonsensical empirical claims doesn't amount to anything from a philosophical perspective because if God were an existent being, presumably his existence wouldn't be dependent on some rediculous book. The point im driving at is that we need to evaluate the concept of God independently of the Bible, or religous dogmas, or the prophets, etc. Disproving the Bible only takes a jab at Christians and jews, not God.
that's not the point of what I was saying. In Dawkin's lecture, he makes it seem that substituting the hand of God with the crane would make the situation totally and comprehensively explainable. That's simply false. He's attributing a sort of objective explanatory power to the crane, and he simply cannot do that because of our lacking knowledge of physics
The Crane he was referring to is the evolutionary jig saw of how things came about. Genetic makeup of all living things because of natural selection or survival.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is a stereotypical example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. Rather than grappling with the actual God, or Gods, in which religous people believe, Dawkins creates his own God whose lack-of-existence can't be doubted. That's a pretty devastating fallacy that 3rd year undergraduate philosophy students, such as myself, would never make. Much peace and love Dawkins, but as a fellow atheist, I beg you to get some serious philosophical training. + sry about the 4 comments in a row. Please read them all
The question of the existance of god is not a philosophical question, its a scientific question, and a straw man is not a philosophical concept its a logical one.
While I'm sure you learn about various logical fallacies in a philosophy class, logical fallacies is not philosophy.
Furthermore, you do realize that if you scruitinize it that hardly it is not even possible to argue about god WITHOUT making a strawman, because there are so many gods and he is just about anything to anyone.
It isn't a straw man because Dawkins is using definitions of god which his opposition agree with. It is not his own, and so if you don't agree with the definition it is not his fault, it's because his opposition has chosen to define god in that way.
If you were to ask any religous believer if they believe in the God that Dawkins portrays in his lecture, they would undoubetly say "no" for the reasons that I ennumerated above. You criticism of my objection makes no sense. Dawkins formulated his own "hoaky" defnition of a God that cannot possibly exist. That, my friend, equals a straw man.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
to the laws of evolution? If one makes the assumption that God IS A BEING that is subject to those laws, one is logically bound to making the concommitant assumptions that "God" is a physical being and that God has or had some evolutionary predecessor. If you ask any religous person if they believe those things, they would undoubtedly say no. My point is that Dawkins is inventing his own God, whose existence is impossible, given the convenient assumptions about his nature that Dawkins makes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In addition, I would like to say that although I think Mr. Dawkins is a spectacular scientist and that I respect his atheistic activism (if you can call it that), I think that his ideas and his work are undermined by his lack of philosophical understanding/training. His argument that God must be more complex than his creation is totally ludicrous. Presumably, if i create/make a tissue dispenser, I am much more comlex than the tissue box. I dont understand why Dawkins assumes God is subject...
Dawkins is wrong when he asserts that God is a scientific matter. He already stated that the idea of an existent God is non-falsifiable. How, then, is science to either prove or disprove his existence? In addition, it's entirely possible for a godless and a God-containing universe to be qualitatively identical. What would be the grounds for asserting that they would have to be necessarily different? Trivially, God's presence would be the diference, but nothing else would distinguish the two.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is wrong when he asserts that God is a scientific matter. He already stated that the idea of an existent God is non-falsifiable. How, then, is science to either prove or disprove his existence? In addition, it's entirely possible for a godless and a God-containing universe to be qualitatively identical. What would be the grounds for asserting that they would have to be necessarily different? Trivially, God's presence would be the diference, but nothing else would distinguish the two.
No,the catholic church has axcepted the evolution and moreover it's not possible for any teacher to skipp that part of the program...so I learnt Darwin's theory since I was a little child(fortunately)....but ther're too speech about god everywhere on the media,it's so boring :S
Richard Hawkins is trying to propagate the philosophy of atheism.
To the fanatical atheist. he is the messiah, to others he is the devil incarnate and a charlatan, and to some others he is a pedantic scholar "misterknowitall" trying to convince everyone on the subject of atheism
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 in playlist UC Berkeley Event - Richard Dawkins
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
Clear, concise, honest, and not dumbed-down.
All I could ask for.
BunnyProle 3 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
Seriously, why do people worship this Jesus loser still, it's so childish......When will they see that Zeus is the one true God, the light that loves everyone in his beautiful creation? :)
torontoBluejays87 6 months ago
@jeushant Of course I can't disprove God. I also know you can't prove the existance of God, as I also know you can't disprove Tooth Faires from existing.
viiScorp 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ~ Carl Sagan
...but wait, be4 that, that person needs to define 'God', and provides evidences of God's existence.
RainHNg 10 months ago
What if someone argues that God himself employed the process on natural selection?
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
Comment removed
RainHNg 10 months ago
Comment removed
RainHNg 10 months ago
Comment removed
RainHNg 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH At least that's not completely unthinkable. There's too much evidence for evolution by natural selection to deny it. Maybe god did create man through evolution, but it seems unlikely to me.
corychivers 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"knowledge(ability to think) is root cause of all doubt"and science is a knowledge and asks evidence for presence of God..
AND U ATHEISTs WILL NEVER ABLE TO DISPROVE GOD EVER!!
B'cz You all are using SCIENCE to disprove GOD which ADAM and EVE acquired when they ate that apple...Now disprove GOD!!??
why should we go with you all ??2 destroy our own eternal life??
**And due to science earth is sufferring from Global Warming!....
and we all christians will play with ur ashes and bones in heaven
jesushant 11 months ago
Since he stated that he's #6 on the scale (not #7), he doesnt 100% believe his own words. Probably "god" is the only guy who believes 100% his own words...cause they're in teh Bible :D
BTW, not-100%-believe-in-your-own- word is far from hypocrisy (which is a state of pretending). Science is all about chance & probability.
That being said, does he have a choice if he REALLY need to find a "right" doctor ? Obviously, he has to take risk.
...that's just my humble opinion based on his speech.
RainHNg 11 months ago
Comment removed
RainHNg 11 months ago
I'm not sure dawkins even believes his own words on that one point about not thinking a scientist can reconcile being a scientist if he is a christian.
that would imply dawkins has to proof people in his life to make sure they arent believers. afterall, why would he trust a doctor to perform surgery on him if he's a "delusional" person.
glennjridge 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've just uploaded a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox! Check out my channel or search for -> "Has Science Buried God?" - Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox debate (1/8)
jonflatmo 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is no evidence to support anything this man is saying. mr dawkins needs Jesus.
talons2112 1 year ago
@talons2112 orly? well, thanks for enlightening us poor uneducated folk.
Echowraith 1 year ago
@talons2112 LOL. Where is the evidence for Jesus?
gruntguy007 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@gruntguy007 the universe and everything in it.
talons2112 1 year ago
@talons2112 Translation for talons2112; "I'm too stupid to understand any of the evidence being put forward and too lazy to try and improve on myself. mr dawkins needs to follow the doctrines put forward by an evil, conceited, schizophrenic, Jewish heretic so long ago that his very existence is disputed.
4ThomasAllan 1 year ago
@4ThomasAllan case and point. this is exactly how you guys conduct "science". insults, bigotry, racism and ridcule along with no evidence. last i looked under scientific observation and theory the definition was totally different than what you conduct. however its easy to spot an atheist in the crowd by their militant "just believe because i yell the loudest" mentality.
talons2112 1 year ago
@talons2112 lol, I didn't say I was doing science you imbecile. How fucking dumb do you have to be to be to assume that everybody who disagrees with you is necessarily using science or is an atheist? If I was using science I wouldn't bother using insults, Occam's razor disposes of a need for invectives and technically I'm an agnostic. I was just mocking your stupid comment because of its overwhelming ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution and the condescending crap about Jesus.
4ThomasAllan 1 year ago
*and where the fuck was the bigotry and racism? do you even know what you're talking about? or do you just throw out a random selection of grievances and hope that some of them stick? You and those like you are part of the reason why it's impossible to take the "hurt feelings" of the religious seriously, have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? FYI projecting the religious strategy of trying to drawn out the competition by being the most voluminous only makes you a hypocrit.
4ThomasAllan 1 year ago
Comment removed
joywonder 11 months ago
@joywonder lol, non sequitors, empty unbacked opinions and ad hominems, weak... I don't get how you think it would work on any level?
4ThomasAllan 11 months ago
@talons2112 - It is a little ironic that you have gone out of your way to come to a lecture by Richard Dawkins and call Atheists "bigoted" and "racist" and then you accuse us of holding a "just believe because I yell the loudest mentality."
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@talons2112 You need a brain.
grayziehobbes 10 months ago
How can some people be against an argument so logical?!
nze82 1 year ago 12
@nze82 Ha, I just had the same thought a moment before reading your comment. I think it's because being part of a religious community is very very comforting. I say it's better to center community around science, logic, psychology. Basically around university-like places. Education is key in helping people see they're just seeing shadows in Plato's Cave. (read that short story if you haven't!) It's only a matter of time before reason beats out brainwashing.
anetchi 1 year ago
Humans are limited in the knowledge of the whole truth therefore men need faith. Science deals only with matter which men measure, weigh, calculate...with intellect. But life force that animates matter is in higher dimension which does not agree with scientific laws and it requires faith, intuition...some kind of divine revelation from the beyond, in order to feel complete.
11someguy69 1 year ago
@11someguy69
We are yet to verify the existence of a "life force". So far, the laws of physics seem sufficient to explain how living beings function. I did not expect to see a "God of the gaps" argument made where there is no gap.
And whether someone feels complete or not has no bearing on whether there's higher dimensions, Gods, demons, or whatever.
TheQuailman 1 year ago
His scale gives me pause, because his argument building is fairly complex. But I wanted to make this point: just because something has a low probability of existing does not mean it doesn't exist. To my knowledge, we still haven't figured out how we even have a universe.
lovebiotech 1 year ago
I find it interesting that Carl Sagan, who clearly rejected revealed religion, ended his novel with his main character discovering evidence of an intelligence behind the universe. Why was he drawn to invoke such a scenario? Dawkins seems unconcerned with the question of a creator per se and spends almost all of his time blasting theism, mostly Abrahamic religions. Not without justification of course.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
@maplebayou1 maybe he meant some sort of alien intelligence that created humans or something like that.
serioushamster 1 year ago
@serioushamster Well, that's certainly a possible interpretation. But it would have to be an intelligence in a "meta-universe" of which ours is a component, because in Sagan's novel, transcendental numbers like pi contain messages. In other words, the mathematical order behind our universe contains messages (in the novel) that are unambiguously from an intelligence. Whether that meta-universe intelligence would be supernatural depends on your definition I guess.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
@maplebayou1 It would be an awful waste of space if we were the only intelligent life in the universe. It is estimated that there are a hundred billlion galaxies each with billions of stars, it would be arrogant to think we are the only life that has evolved, similarly arrogant to when the church insisted on a geocentric universe.
Jshect 1 year ago
@Jshect I agree with you, but when I said "intelligence behind the universe," I meant that Sagan's protagonist discovers that the universe was created (his words). The evidence for this consists of unambiguous messages in transcendental numbers like pi. This important element was missing from the movie based on his novel.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
@Jshect As for extraterrestrials, some find it an ominous portent that we have received no unambiguous messages from them. Of course there could be many explanatiions for this, but many take this to mean that technological civilizations quickly destroy themselves, almost always. One wonders if evolutionary baggage almost inevitably snuffs out these little candles spread across the galaxy.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
ccc dawkins reis ccc
ihsanokur 1 year ago
i went to see the hubble flim after seing this all it done is reenforce in my atheisme,after seing that i couls see that we are an electron in a grain of sand in a beach of sand ,why should a god would care about us even create us alone in the entire immensity of galxy that contains billions and billions of stars
mystisme 1 year ago
if christians don't like richard dawkins (and i have no doubt their god doesn't) then surely they can just pray that god will smite him!!!
(and if it doesn't work, i'm sure he has a 'special plan' for him)
icameupwiththisname 1 year ago
Human's try to examine God is like
a worm try to examine a human...
loveJesus4eternity 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV So you're saying Richard Dawkins haven't visited your channel? Why should he?
I got a question for you. Is your channel free from false witnessing against evolution?
yahooman2009 1 year ago
You don't?! Right then, god did it
:D
Oh religious people.
anetchi 1 year ago 3
Fuckyourself Eye
fakeaccount8455hr 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV I visited your channel. I still see not a shred of evidence. If I can find no evidence on your channel, what makes you think Dawkins would? What I have found is an ignorance of history and logic.
MonkeyBallZ214 1 year ago
existence is more likely to have been just, provoked. inadvertently by some reaction or something from beyond the universe. actual intentional creation from some entity seems very very wrong. people dont need this false comfort as much these days, and we need to remove religious influence from unneccessary priviledge and authory in politcs. people get comfort from the simple fact that were continually finding new truths and putting more pieces into the puzzle.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
were all in the same boat and lifes and deaths inevitable and were all in the same boat. THATS comfort. fuck god. theri puppets for a bunch of ego obsessed megalomaniacs who hypnotise thier audience with their own fantasy novels for thier own organisations. these religions breed their audiences as members and forcing parents to pass the cancer on new generations under false threat of eternal torture. if that doesnt sound like an evil man made phenomon then i dont know what the hell does.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Natural selection also faces the same problem with infinite regress
Majorbakstor 2 years ago
Which is where abiogenesis enters the picture. Check it out, tis pretty nifty.
Bringerofdeath9753 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Majorbakstor 2 years ago
@Bringerofdeath9753
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life forms, but it doesn't answer where the inanimate (non-living) matter comes from
Majorbakstor 2 years ago
Exactly. Natural selection, therefore, does not have the issue of infinite regress, because it clearly has a set beginning.
The fact that scientists have yet to develop an equally strong theory on the origins of the universe (although there are several interesting ones) does not then count as a mark against the theory of natural selection.
We have natural selection, and we have abiogenesis. We're simply missing the origin., but we're working on it.
What does religion have? A bloody book.
Bringerofdeath9753 2 years ago 11
@Bringerofdeath
It only has a beginning so far as life forms come from lifeless matter. However, it is now faced with the problem of WHERE the lifeless matter comes from.
I'm not disputing that it clearly explains the beginning of life forms. I'm disputing that it doesn't help us understand where the inanimate matter which creates life forms comes from
Majorbakstor 2 years ago
Indeed, but that is hardly the fault of the theory of natural selection.
The theories of gravity are not challenged on the grounds that they do not explain the origins of the universe, because it is an entirely different field of science involved. Same idea with natural selection.
Evolution doesn't try to explain origins, and it doesn't need to, because it only comes into effect once life arises. You're meshing together several theories to create the illusion of a conflict.
See what I mean?
Bringerofdeath9753 2 years ago
I see your point. I agree that natural selection answers where the origins of life begin. I don't put it on the theory of natural selection to explain where existence comes from. However, until scientists can show where existence comes from, they will never be able to rule out a designer.
I am an atheist myself, however, I accept that until a designer can be disproven, or an answer to the origin of existence itself is found, a designer cannot be ruled out.
Majorbakstor 2 years ago
Beautiful. Glad we got that worked out.
Bringerofdeath9753 2 years ago
@Bringerofdeath9753 and at least scientists admit they don't have a definitive answer! that's humility... unlike the 'humility' that "i'm so special & everything is created with me in mind" which is what religion is all about.
allfitch84 5 months ago
And? That makes evolution invalid? Or abiogenesis?
The fact that we don't know yet everything invalidates everything we know and found out to be true?
cc22mm 2 years ago 3
The universe is the universe. I don't see why atheistic scientists and religious scientists can't form the same conclusion.
donignacio2000 2 years ago
well its a pretty useless conclusion
Art4261 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
I would not want to be a christian because the studying of it would be appealing. I don't want to engage in wish thinking
TaylorThaHick 2 years ago
your channel is such bullshit, all your arguments suppose the existence of god, you can't even look past the object you're trying to prove
you've been indoctrinated. wake up.
Art4261 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins should watch this!
watch?v=BKmdIdQg3Ks
:D
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Bloody brilliant mate, well put.
Shenkoa360 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
TRuTH,truth,Truth,TRUTH...
thatpayne 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."- Romans 1:20
SuperboyXX0018 2 years ago
I have six supermodel girlfriends, it's just they're invisible!
n0deity 2 years ago 24
The third one is HOT.
gamesbok 2 years ago
yep, that's how they fucking fooled you, man. saying shit like that.
samm1809 2 years ago
right then! god did it! rofl.
Alkarin11 2 years ago 12
i love richard dawkins! jesus sucks!
TheJesusSucks 2 years ago 89
lol. very blaintly said.
poppyseeds91 2 years ago
@TheJesusSucks
Oh don't be such an immature prick.. What the feck does Jesus has to do with it? There is a chance that he could not even have been a real person for all we know. And if he was an actual historical figure, I'm quite sure that the Christian faith and all that farce with its paedophile priests and their funny hats, was not what he had in mind.
Better say RELIGION sucks.
joseffritzlismydaddy 1 year ago
@joseffritzlismydaddy Okay, fair enough. "Pedophiles suck" as my ex girlfriend used to say.
TheJesusSucks 1 year ago
@TheJesusSucks
I believe that its the child (or the alterboy) who does most of the sucking though.
joseffritzlismydaddy 1 year ago 2
@TheJesusSucks Dawkins didn't die for you...he don't even care about you..he cares about himself...Christ cares about all of us.
loveJesus4eternity 1 year ago
@loveJesus4eternity Oh brother, another one of those. First, how do you know Jesus died for you, or that any of the claims about his life are true? Because the Bible tells you so? Second, if Jesus was real, I don't think temporarily dying, then coming back in a stronger body and being worshipped forever counts as a sacrifice. Third, if he cares about all of us, maybe he shouldn't inflict infinite punishment on those who don't believe in him.
TheJesusSucks 1 year ago 2
@loveJesus4eternity: I do not want ANYBODY to die for me, thank you. To say that Dawkins does not care about other human beings is just wrong. Human beings caring for other human beings (and for other living beings), working to reduce suffering and increase well-being, make the world a better place. They (hopefully, we) make all the difference.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@TheJesusSucks I don't agree with you. Jesus is a positive character that has been misused as a figure throughout history. Still, he is not perfect. And still there's a small probability that he even existed. And yet still, I'm an atheist.
Drakon222 1 year ago
@Drakon222 You think damning homosexuals to hell, damning anyone who doesn't except Jesus as their personal savior to eternal torture is positive? Sure Jesus said treat others as you would like to be treated but so did confucius 1000 years earlier so that wasn't even original.
Jshect 1 year ago
@TheJesusSucks I'd like to see Richard Dawkins own the intelectuals of the time better than Darwin could ever wish. And die for somone, let alone rise again.
desasterz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desasterz There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus died and than rose again from the dead. And since there there is no physical evidence it most likely never happened!
Jshect 1 year ago
@TheJesusSucks Im a teapot-ist
MamaMario13 1 year ago
@TheJesusSucks Personally, I think, that Jesus has a very good philosphy of life, and he was a better man than we are (if we assume that descriped picture of Jesus in Bible is true). And to be clear i don't believe in God, or the miracles and ressurection of Jesus, but i still think that Jesus got some ideas that he was loyal to and thats worth to respect. (sorry for my english).
DoktorJoint 1 year ago
@DoktorJoint you obviously have only selectively read about jesus in the bible..sure is a bit more tolerant hen his dad..but still he has rather deplorable views on men and women, sexuality, slavery..no he really isn't that good, real or imagined he is rather facile and vile.
eahazell 1 year ago
@TheJesusSucks haha funniest comment on youtube. probably.
bodhu50 1 year ago
@bodhu50 Thank you, sir. If you like the comment, you check out my video poem also called "Jesus Sucks."
TheJesusSucks 1 year ago
fantastic. Richard Dawkins is brilliant!!! I could listen to him speak for ages. I hope I'm lucky enough to see him in person one day : )
anetchi 2 years ago 85
@anetchi I hear he has a speaking engagement in Hell.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 Right after he speaks at Hogwarts School of Magic and the Shire. There's not a bit of actual evidence for that place you mentioned. Why believe in something without evidence? Ridiculous.
anetchi 1 year ago
@anetchi I bet you still think the earth is flat too, huh? Maybe NASA is lying to you. Did you ever think of that?
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@anetchi Indocrination, my friend.
gracii92 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i cna think of another alternative to design and chance - inadvertent creation.
living things create millions of reactions all the time, that they arent even aware of
when you steel toe caps and you walk down the street, you probably create tiny spearks now and then and theres no way youd ever be aware.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
in the micro world, there are electons and nuclei in an atom. scale up and you have electon planets and a nucleus sun. scale up again; electon galaxys around an unknown nucleus. maybe something from a bigger world inadvertantly started existence on our scale.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
these christians that post sttcks are so funny. They just prove the point!!
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A.L.I.C.E. I.N. W.O.N.D.E.R.L.A.N.D. = "Atheistic Logic Inverts Cause/Effect If Non-seeing 'Watchmaker' Originated Neo-Darwinist Dawkins' Eyesight, Revealing Logical Absurdity Nonbeliever Defends!"
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
N.A.T.U.R.A.L.
S.E.L.E.C.T.I.O.N. = "Now Atheist Thinks Universal Randomness Also Leaves Special Exception: 'Logical Evolutionists'! (Contradicting Idea Of Naturalism!)
Natural Selection is not an alternative, because Dawkins would have to concede that their is no intelligence behind natural selection. His "Blind Watchmaker" is blinding its "By-product": Dawkins!
Besides, how can a Blind Watchmaker's by-product see, understand and even reason better than a non-seeing, nonrational process?
Acronym77 2 years ago
Wow, just look up potholer54's videos on evolution made easy and LEARN something.
Venaloid 2 years ago 3
Acronym77: You forgot the "T" noob. Lol.
Ilperon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The "T" should have "The" representing it.
"Contradicting The Idea Of Naturalism"
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I.L.P.E.R.O.N. = "Individual Lacking Proper Education Reveals Own 'Noobishness!"
Acronym77 2 years ago
Please. My use of "noob" and such other slang terms are purely based to mock the ignorance of the internet community, and you.
Clearly, I have more of an education than you, spending less time pointlessly speculating and posting acronyms that exist only to defame or mock someone. Besides, pointing out the error in you comment is to relieve the passion that you have in it. Look at the comments in your channel. Take their advice.
Ilperon 2 years ago
I.L.P.E.R.O.N. = "Ilperon's Liines Posted Eventually Reveals One's Naivete'.
D.E.F.A.M.A.T.I.O.N. = "Disrespectful Effort Fauting All My Acronyms Thus Is Obvious Now!"
You defamed me.
Acronym77 2 years ago
Yes. That was the point. Can't take a dose of your own medicine? Only have care for your own feelings, but not others? Pathetic! You lack even a rudimentary understanding of moral. Your arrogance and pride are blatantly seen in those "acronyms" of yours. Acronym77, your cheesy, redundant, spiteful, and somewhat crude comments cause a detriment in the YouTube community. Your forgetting to put "the" in one of your acronyms shows how eager you are to mock someone.
Ilperon 2 years ago 2
Poor victim. Grow up! You criticized me first. Who called who a "Noob". What a wimp! You have taken "victimhood" to a new low in the Youtube community. You ought to make a video for all the times you have been "Defamed". But you will obviously leave out your crude, spiteful criticisms you give to others.
Acronym77 2 years ago
My criticisms are not crude nor spiteful. Clearly the way you put things shows your own state of being. I do not see this as a fight, (But you do, playing the "he did it first") merely a different viewpoint of what you are doing. The only reason you feel defamed is because my criticism of you is accurate and precise.
Ilperon 2 years ago
*Faulting
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"V.I.C.T.I.M." = "Victimized Ilperon's Crying Takes Immature Manners!"
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey WIMP, remember this post you made. Poor victim! LOL!
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
C.H.A.R.L.E.S.
D.A.R.W.I.N. = "Christian Heretic's Arguments Reveal Little Empirical Science! Denying Almighty Reveals Willful Ingnorance Now"
The New Testament book called 2 peter touches on the subject of unbelievers' willful ingorance. I think it's chapter 3.
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If evolution/atheism were true (they aren't) guess who would be the evolutionary losers of "Natural Selection"? Unfit atheists!
T.H.E. G.O.D. D.E.L.U.S.I.O.N. B.Y. R.I.C.H.A.R.D. D.A.W.K.I.N.S. = "Those Having Embraced God Outnumber Doubters, Displaying 'Evolution's' Leaving Unfit Skeptics Insignificant Offspring Numerically. Besides, Young Religious Individuals Consistently Haven't Aborted Reproduced Offspring, Displaying A Will-to-survive Knowledge Involving Natural Selection!"
Acronym77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science on his side or not ... could we just not say we don't care how it happened ... it happened ... as they say ... "Shit happens" ... Humans appear ... we an only weep that it is reality.
tubeficator 2 years ago
OK people could have atleast speculated that humans evolved to a technological state in the future where time travel was possible then created the universe and were all living in this great paradox and some of us are destined to design everything or our descendents some time in the future, or the past or a possible future that could have happened if we all just learned to get along instead of displaying eachothers scalps on pyrimids in the past
arachnophile01 2 years ago
I love how he says at the 9:00 mark, "you don't? Right then!! God did it!"" Cracks me up!! I should like to meet Mr. Dawkins and shake his hand! He is just genius!
twoonbiscayne 2 years ago 4
Crane (realistic) V. Skyhook (hoaky). I like that distinction of respectively reason and delusion.
johntkucz 2 years ago
The dawkinsus narcissus- a mutated lifeform -is shown in this clip;Recombinant DNA should be used to modify its microbial like Genome and allowed to develop under test conditions to see if it survives the natural selection process.
EINGE7 2 years ago
guess that easier than trying to argue his points.
elfred1980 2 years ago
EXCELLENT.
PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS IS THE WISE MAN OF THE 21st CENTURY.
HE IS AN INSPIRATION FOR ALL OF US.
mohfoz77 2 years ago 2
8:54 never seizes to amuse me
thebutler89 2 years ago
ceases
amacattack1 2 years ago 4
thank you
thebutler89 2 years ago
I forgot something. So Dawkin's mentions Daniel Dennett's crane example saying that the crane has more explanatory value than God's hand. While that might be true, the crane leaves something to be desired. For instance, we don't know why the laws of Gravity exist. It's a phenomena physicists haven't yet explained. The point is that the crane lacks the sort of absolutistic and comprehensive explanatory power Dawkins attributes to it...even though God's hand is more mysterious. Just fine tuning
nasbster915 2 years ago
Physicists know why. You don't. There's a difference ;-)
Serenitude 2 years ago 3
Have you ever spoken to a physicist....do me a favor and ask a professional. I have, and they don't know why gravity functions in the way that it does. The best they have are theories that point to possible solutions, none of which have been validated.
nasbster915 2 years ago
Not sure what physcists you've talked to, but I work with some, and they have an extremely good grasp of gravity ;-) I'm sorry you do not. But the argument from personal incredulity isn't proof of God, ie: "I don't understand it personally, so God must have done it...."
Serenitude 2 years ago 3
God ,very simply, just does not make sense. There are thousands of arguments that show the probability of god to be close to nil or nil itself, with no refutation worth a plug nickle. But every argument for the existence of a god is at any time a few minutes away from being shredded with reality,logic,intelligence, reason and/or evidence.
fungiphile 2 years ago
you cant calculate the probability of a god's existing. Besides, the religous person doesn't have to prove that God exists. The burden rests on philosopher's to show that the concept of God is incoherent, in which case we could have no understanding of what/who/how God is if he were to exist.
nasbster915 2 years ago
By that logic, I suppose the teapotist does not have to prove that the teapot exists either. It must be up to the astronomers to disprove what they cannot get any evidence for, right? I suppose people that believe that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon do not have the burden of proof on them either. How about people that believe in talking giraffes? What about the Flying Spaghetti monster? What about the existence of Narnia? I suppose people have to disprove those ideas too.
Feldmm1 2 years ago 6
you are totally off the mark and that doesn't follow from what I said. I'm only saying that substituting the hand of God for the crane doesn't make the phenomena TOTALLY COMPREHENDSIVELY explainable/understandable--> to strive for such comprehension of any physical event is impossible given the fact that the scientific theory of gravity is falsifiable by nature. I never said that we have to go about disproving the teapot theory. It's a skeptical assumption with no evidence--There, happy?
nasbster915 2 years ago
You are trying to debunk Dawkins without backing your argument with a shred of evidence.
Dawkins has science on his side, that is enough in my book.
roac7777 2 years ago 3
Wrong - the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. If I said "unicorns exist" you would rightly ask "prove it".
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 25
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's exactly what I said in the above comment. What's at issue is the fact that the teapotist has no legitimate grounds for claiming that there is an interstellar teapot. No grounds=no reason for believing the interstellar teapot exists. Like i said, it's a skeptical assumpmtion with no evidence so we don't believe it. We're in agreement. But the God issue is another question. Because God isn't some physical entity in the universe, we can't use empirical evidence to disprove his existence.
nasbster915 2 years ago
or to prove it either. The God issue is a subject best left to philosophers with philosophical training and not to science enthusiasts who have no understanding of issues like concept coherence or metaphysical scope and who have no knowledge of the God debate which has raged since the fourth century. If you don't believe me, read Plantinga or Peter van Inwagen or Daniel Dennett or, hell. even read Aquinas. Don't listen to a biologist. That's like asking a zoologist how the universe began.
nasbster915 2 years ago
God - in the Jewish-Christian-Islamic sense, would have to be a physical entity in the universe, or at least would have to leave a physical impression of his actions. If God interferes with the physical processes in the universe then physical evidence would be left. No such evidence has ever been found. However, if we're talking about God in the deistic, philosophical sense, I agree with you in a way - it's an untestable hypothesis.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
philosophers? they can talk about what they want. but do they prove their statement to be true? or can they?
never. you need science to prove.
kiiler2 2 years ago 3
you don't have to be a cook to feed me.
you don't have to be a philosopher to deal with the god issue.
kiiler2 2 years ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 2 years ago
hahaha you hit the nail on the head
nasbster915 2 years ago
I agree 100%
That why they shouldn't teach "Intellgent design" in schools.
Reglious has no place in schools just as facts have no place in organised relgion
Scientist dont teach evoultion in church.
It would be fair to expect that people dont teach "intelligent design" in schools
badpanda84 2 years ago 2
But we can look at the bible and disprove everything it says from a historical, geological, and scientific perspective. And since the bible is the word of god, we can assume that either god is full of BS, or he doesn't exist.
N1ntenOwned 2 years ago 6
The Bible is the word of God only for Christians and Jews. Disproving the Bible's nonsensical empirical claims doesn't amount to anything from a philosophical perspective because if God were an existent being, presumably his existence wouldn't be dependent on some rediculous book. The point im driving at is that we need to evaluate the concept of God independently of the Bible, or religous dogmas, or the prophets, etc. Disproving the Bible only takes a jab at Christians and jews, not God.
nasbster915 2 years ago
Just because something cannot as yet be explained by scientists that does not mean it was designed or created by a god
roac7777 2 years ago 2
that's not the point of what I was saying. In Dawkin's lecture, he makes it seem that substituting the hand of God with the crane would make the situation totally and comprehensively explainable. That's simply false. He's attributing a sort of objective explanatory power to the crane, and he simply cannot do that because of our lacking knowledge of physics
nasbster915 2 years ago
The Crane he was referring to is the evolutionary jig saw of how things came about. Genetic makeup of all living things because of natural selection or survival.
roac7777 2 years ago 3
i totally agree and that's not what I'm claiming
nasbster915 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a stereotypical example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. Rather than grappling with the actual God, or Gods, in which religous people believe, Dawkins creates his own God whose lack-of-existence can't be doubted. That's a pretty devastating fallacy that 3rd year undergraduate philosophy students, such as myself, would never make. Much peace and love Dawkins, but as a fellow atheist, I beg you to get some serious philosophical training. + sry about the 4 comments in a row. Please read them all
nasbster915 2 years ago
The question of the existance of god is not a philosophical question, its a scientific question, and a straw man is not a philosophical concept its a logical one.
While I'm sure you learn about various logical fallacies in a philosophy class, logical fallacies is not philosophy.
Furthermore, you do realize that if you scruitinize it that hardly it is not even possible to argue about god WITHOUT making a strawman, because there are so many gods and he is just about anything to anyone.
Shoukaze 2 years ago
It isn't a straw man because Dawkins is using definitions of god which his opposition agree with. It is not his own, and so if you don't agree with the definition it is not his fault, it's because his opposition has chosen to define god in that way.
DevJL 2 years ago
If you were to ask any religous believer if they believe in the God that Dawkins portrays in his lecture, they would undoubetly say "no" for the reasons that I ennumerated above. You criticism of my objection makes no sense. Dawkins formulated his own "hoaky" defnition of a God that cannot possibly exist. That, my friend, equals a straw man.
nasbster915 2 years ago
NO, Richard Dawkins derives his definition(s) from the very believers who he refutes.
It is not a straw-man despite the fact that there may be many people who do not agree with the definitions on which he bases his arguments.
I'm sure that if you defined god for him in your own unique way then his arguments would change with the changed definition.
As things are, his arguments are pretty solid.
DevJL 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
to the laws of evolution? If one makes the assumption that God IS A BEING that is subject to those laws, one is logically bound to making the concommitant assumptions that "God" is a physical being and that God has or had some evolutionary predecessor. If you ask any religous person if they believe those things, they would undoubtedly say no. My point is that Dawkins is inventing his own God, whose existence is impossible, given the convenient assumptions about his nature that Dawkins makes.
nasbster915 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In addition, I would like to say that although I think Mr. Dawkins is a spectacular scientist and that I respect his atheistic activism (if you can call it that), I think that his ideas and his work are undermined by his lack of philosophical understanding/training. His argument that God must be more complex than his creation is totally ludicrous. Presumably, if i create/make a tissue dispenser, I am much more comlex than the tissue box. I dont understand why Dawkins assumes God is subject...
nasbster915 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins is wrong when he asserts that God is a scientific matter. He already stated that the idea of an existent God is non-falsifiable. How, then, is science to either prove or disprove his existence? In addition, it's entirely possible for a godless and a God-containing universe to be qualitatively identical. What would be the grounds for asserting that they would have to be necessarily different? Trivially, God's presence would be the diference, but nothing else would distinguish the two.
nasbster915 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is wrong when he asserts that God is a scientific matter. He already stated that the idea of an existent God is non-falsifiable. How, then, is science to either prove or disprove his existence? In addition, it's entirely possible for a godless and a God-containing universe to be qualitatively identical. What would be the grounds for asserting that they would have to be necessarily different? Trivially, God's presence would be the diference, but nothing else would distinguish the two.
nasbster915 2 years ago
We need someone like Dawkins in Italy :(
callimacos 2 years ago
Do many Italians not believe in evolution?
mrkun 2 years ago
well i mean the vatican city is right there
MILANISTA1831 2 years ago
No,the catholic church has axcepted the evolution and moreover it's not possible for any teacher to skipp that part of the program...so I learnt Darwin's theory since I was a little child(fortunately)....but ther're too speech about god everywhere on the media,it's so boring :S
callimacos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Best, most meaningful, truthful and conscienceness raising video ever posted on Youtube!
MagicBlueFinger 2 years ago 2
Evolution by means of Natural Selection is so obvious.
peteq1972 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Hawkins is trying to propagate the philosophy of atheism.
To the fanatical atheist. he is the messiah, to others he is the devil incarnate and a charlatan, and to some others he is a pedantic scholar "misterknowitall" trying to convince everyone on the subject of atheism
pepys1633 2 years ago
Gee, wonder which camp you fall into.
Dawkins' (with a 'D') impressive intellect is an appeal to rationality and reason and the abandonment of mythological fantasy.
His simple, clear logic reminds me of the best math teacher I ever had. Her gentle manner allowed us to get it 'the first time'.
bencubed 2 years ago 9